date:20101209

Hello,

I don't like to send emails like this but I don't see a solution other than
this.

I understand that we need money to keep the Wikimedia Foundation running,
and yes I support the fundraiser and I donated money. But do we want money
because we told people other things than the truth I find it kind of strange
and very disturbing that there are things that currently being used to get
money from visitors while those things are simply wrong.

First we have the donating landing page and it say's

Together, we can keep it free of charge and free of advertising. We can keep
it open – you can use the information in Wikipedia any way you want. We can
keep it growing – spreading knowledge everywhere, and inviting participation
from everyone...

*free of charge*

The content on Wikipedia is written under a free license that means
everybody can use in all ways saying that Wikipedia will be a payed source
of information will just be wrong because all the content is on mirrors and
even if it goes bad it will always be free for everybody somewhere.


Secondly:

There is a banner saying Sue is the Director of Wikipedia and there is a
discussion about that where somebody of the fundraising team say's that they
are testing what gives more money... Telling people Sue the director of
Wikipedia or Sue the Director for the Wikimedia Foundation...


But the Fundraising team knows that they are wrong because the Sue's letter
says: *Wikipedia will always be free* (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterA/en)


But let us ask the quistion: Do we want to make this our best fundraiser
knowing we didn't tell the truth about things or do we think we can be open
and clear about roles, functions and facts?  I hope we choose the last
option.

-- 
Regards,
Huib Abigor Laurens



Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking
reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who
writes articles etc.

Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual
error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki
(in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother
tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and
language barriers may spread false information.

Cheers,

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
FWIW

The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's
being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more
later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it
out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge
that...

Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the
sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I
don't think it should be used anywhere.

But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required

2010-12-09 Thread Virgilio A. P. Machado

1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request made.

2) No action is asked or expected.

These two personal commitments are important before answering an
absolutely legitimate request for clarification: why [is] this issue
of such [...] importance to the thread-creator.

It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado

and

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado

That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his
edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural
life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a
great deal more.

What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly
working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users,
this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or
banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same
administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no
title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real name.

It is very important for the pt.wiki.

The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user
felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta
page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned
above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user subpage:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
following reports on Meta:

October 2010 -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010

November 2010 -
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard

It is very important to the communities at large.

Unaware of the existence of this essay
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user
opened a request for comment on Meta on What is public and
non-public personal information?
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information

and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information)

which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions
that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects.

It is hoped that the above explanations fully justify the statement
that the user was interested in the information requested For
reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to the
communities at large. as it would provide more evidence of real
names being used, without leading to the blocking or banning of the
arbcoms that used them in the TITLE of a case.

Due to the sensitivity of the matter, this user wishes to withdraw
his request, and apologizes for any anxiety he might have caused in
some members of this list. What happened to him is evidence enough.
If there are no further questions concerning this request, it will
now be considered closed. For inquires, opinions, and/or debate about
other matters mentioned above, both this user and the listed talk
pages are available to all.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
Co-author of A civilized community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Comment_draft

At 01:17 09-12-2010, you wrote:
On the English Wikipedia, we generally try to avoid bringing editors' real
names into decisions, unless the username is the real name. In the three
years I've been an arbitrator, we have extended this courtesy even to some
highly troublesome users. (Aficionadoes of the En-WP arbitration pages will
recognize the Mantanmoreland and MZMcBride 2 cases as examples.)

I am not clear, however, on why this issue of such such importance to the
thread-creator.

Newyorkbrad

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required

2010-12-09 Thread FT2

That won't help much.

If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order to
protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being
blocked for mentioning other users' names.

There are problems with this.

1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line the
only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title). Cases
exist (eg enwiki Arbcom)
2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be
different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and their
internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going to
persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on some
other wiki.
3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For example
on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's real
name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is the
difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the second
case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending on
context and community.
4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by pt-arbcom*.
But nobody has said you were or weren't.

Hope this helps?

FT2

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.ptwrote:

1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request
made.

2) No action is asked or expected.

These two personal commitments are important before answering an
absolutely legitimate request for clarification: why [is] this issue
of such [...] importance to the thread-creator.

It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado
and

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado

It is very important for the pt.wiki.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
following reports on Meta:

October 2010 -

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010

November 2010 -

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard

It is very important to the communities at large.

Unaware of the existence of this essay
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user
opened a request for comment on Meta on What is public and
non-public personal information?
(
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information
and

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information
)
which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions
that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects.

[Foundation-l] Downtime error message turned into monolingual

Hi,
I've got an error message in trying to access Japanese Wikipedia. It
seems long, but it's not my topic.
IIRC the message from server was multilingualized years ago and we
have offered the message with links to other lang
same messages.

The message itself seems not changed from the past, but now it's in
English and only without any links to any other language.

What happened? Who decided to remove lang links? And what is the idea
behind of this removal?

Cheers,

-- 
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Delphine Ménard

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a
 variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a
 project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as
 possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic
 level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we
 might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a
 messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing.
 That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic.

 That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you.

And mine. My thanks too.

To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a
falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia
community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from
Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that
Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power
over editorial content.


Delphine



-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Fundraising more important than the Truth?

Hello,

I don't like to send emails like this but I don't see a solution other than
this.

I understand that we need money to keep the Wikimedia Foundation running,
and yes I support the fundraiser and I donated money. But do we want money
because we told people other things than the truth I find it kind of strange
and very disturbing that there are things that currently being used to get
money from visitors while those things are simply wrong.

First we have the donating landing page and it say's

Together, we can keep it free of charge and free of advertising. We can keep
it open – you can use the information in Wikipedia any way you want. We can
keep it growing – spreading knowledge everywhere, and inviting participation
from everyone...

*free of charge*

The content on Wikipedia is written under a free license that means
everybody can use in all ways saying that Wikipedia will be a payed source
of information will just be wrong because all the content is on mirrors and
even if it goes bad it will always be free for everybody somewhere.


Secondly:

There is a banner saying Sue is the Director of Wikipedia and there is a
discussion about that where somebody of the fundraising team say's that they
are testing what gives more money... Telling people Sue the director of
Wikipedia or Sue the Director for the Wikimedia Foundation...


But the Fundraising team knows that they are wrong because the Sue's letter
says: *Wikipedia will always be free* (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterA/en)


But let us ask the quistion: Do we want to make this our best fundraiser
knowing we didn't tell the truth about things or do we think we can be open
and clear about roles, functions and facts?  I hope we choose the last
option.

-- 
Regards,
Huib Abigor Laurens



Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Nathan

2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
 On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a
 variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a
 project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as
 possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic
 level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we
 might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a
 messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing.
 That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic.

 That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you.

 And mine. My thanks too.

 To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a
 falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia
 community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from
 Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that
 Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power
 over editorial content.


 Delphine





I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is
understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding
that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's
independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and
its projects.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Austin Hair

2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com:
I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking
reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who
writes articles etc.

Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to
me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies—Senior Editor, Editor
Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor—this is bound to confuse
the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we
have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and
Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably
frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the
difference.

It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American
staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not—I know that plenty of
people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even
if it's talking to foreigners on IRC.

I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki?

Austin

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
FWIW

The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's
being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more
later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing
it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to
acknowledge that...

Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the
sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I
don't think it should be used anywhere.

But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required

2010-12-09 Thread Ryan Lomonaco

FT2,

Please let it go - I talked with Virgilio off-list yesterday; it sounds like
he didn't mean to stir up a storm, and would rather this thread die.

Thanks,
Ryan

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:

That won't help much.

If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order to
protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being
blocked for mentioning other users' names.

There are problems with this.

1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line the
only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title). Cases
exist (eg enwiki Arbcom)
2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be
different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and
their
internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going to
persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on some
other wiki.
3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For example
on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's
real
name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is the
difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the
second
case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending on
context and community.
4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by
pt-arbcom*.
But nobody has said you were or weren't.

Hope this helps?

FT2

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt
wrote:

1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request
made.

2) No action is asked or expected.

These two personal commitments are important before answering an
absolutely legitimate request for clarification: why [is] this issue
of such [...] importance to the thread-creator.

It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado
and

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado

It is very important for the pt.wiki.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
following reports on Meta:

October 2010 -

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010

November 2010 -

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboardhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard

It is very important to the communities at large.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information
and

Re: [Foundation-l] excluding Wikipedia clones from searching

2010-12-09 Thread WJhonson

In a message dated 12/9/2010 2:51:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:


 yes it would be great. As i said, it could just include all pages
 listed as REF pages and that would allow people to review the results
 and find pages that should not belong.
 
 We also need to cache all these pages, best would be with a revision
 history. It should be similar to or using archive.org.
 

We would not be able to do that for copyright reasons.
Some if not most of the refs are still under copyright, we cannot make 
copies of those pages.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail?


2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com

 2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com:
  I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking
  reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who
  writes articles etc.
 
  Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual
  error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki
  (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother
  tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and
  language barriers may spread false information.

 Not to mention cultural barriers.  In Wikipedia communities with (to
 me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor
 Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse
 the heck out of people.  As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we
 have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and
 Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably
 frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the
 difference.

 It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American
 staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of
 people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even
 if it's talking to foreigners on IRC.

 I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki?

 Austin

  On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette
  pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  FWIW
 
  The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and
 that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit
 more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in
 pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to
 acknowledge that...
 
  Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the
  sort.  That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content.  I
  don't think it should be used anywhere.
 
  But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects.
 
  --
  John Vandenberg
 
  ___
  foundation-l mailing list
  foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 
 
 
 
  --
  KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
  member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会
 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
  ___
  foundation-l mailing list
  foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




-- 
Regards,
Huib Abigor Laurens



Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Thomas Dalton

2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com:
 Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail?

I've received this email...

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Noein

You don't receive your own mails. We got two copies of your previous
mail. You can check on the pipermail. [1]


[1]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/

On 09/12/2010 19:39, Huib Laurens wrote:
 Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail?
 
 
 2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com
 
 2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com:
 I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking
 reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who
 writes articles etc.

 Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual
 error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki
 (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother
 tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and
 language barriers may spread false information.

 Not to mention cultural barriers.  In Wikipedia communities with (to
 me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor
 Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse
 the heck out of people.  As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we
 have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and
 Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably
 frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the
 difference.

 It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American
 staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of
 people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even
 if it's talking to foreigners on IRC.

 I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki?

 Austin

 On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette
 pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 FWIW

 The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and
 that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit
 more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in
 pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to
 acknowledge that...

 Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the
 sort.  That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content.  I
 don't think it should be used anywhere.

 But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects.

 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




 --
 KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
 member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会
 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

 
 
 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Andrew Gray

On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:

 it into the story for fundraising and other communications. We need to
 both make sense and be accurate. If it's accurate and doesn't make
 sense, it probably won't be effective, but also just because something
 makes sense to people doesn't make it accurate, and that's equally a
 problem.

It may be a bad move in this case, but I don't think we should
*always* avoid this sort of glossing. We ran banners on the English
projects, for example, describing people as Wikipedia authors; this
is a term not generally used there, preferring editor instead.

But to an outsider, author is a much more descriptive term than
editor; it doesn't imply seniority or control, and so while it's
technically inaccurate it actually gets the idea of a normal user
across much better than having the right terminology would.

(Many of us have seen seen cases where someone's heard editor of
Wikipedia and got drastically the wrong impression...)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Austin Hair

2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com:
 Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail?

You are definitely not on moderation, and I don't see any record of
you ever being on moderation.

If you have any doubts about whether a message of yours has gone
through, you can contact me or any other administrator to check.

Austin

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the
list... But that seems to stopped working today?


2010/12/9 Noein prono...@gmail.com

 You don't receive your own mails. We got two copies of your previous
 mail. You can check on the pipermail. [1]


 [1]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/

 On 09/12/2010 19:39, Huib Laurens wrote:
  Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail?
 
 
  2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com
 
  2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com:
  I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking
  reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who
  writes articles etc.
 
  Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual
  error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki
  (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother
  tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and
  language barriers may spread false information.
 
  Not to mention cultural barriers.  In Wikipedia communities with (to
  me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor
  Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse
  the heck out of people.  As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we
  have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and
  Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably
  frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the
  difference.
 
  It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American
  staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of
  people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even
  if it's talking to foreigners on IRC.
 
  I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki?
 
  Austin
 
  On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette
  pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  FWIW
 
  The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and
  that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a
 bit
  more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in
  pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted
 to
  acknowledge that...
 
  Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the
  sort.  That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content.  I
  don't think it should be used anywhere.
 
  But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects.
 
  --
  John Vandenberg
 
  ___
  foundation-l mailing list
  foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 
 
 
 
  --
  KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
  member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会
  http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
  ___
  foundation-l mailing list
  foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 
 
  ___
  foundation-l mailing list
  foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 
 
 
 


 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




-- 
Regards,
Huib Abigor Laurens



Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread K. Peachey

I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out,
It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in
Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job
title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the
donations this year, the local chapters are as well.
-Peachey

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 9 December 2010 23:03, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
 I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out,
 It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in
 Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job
 title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the
 donations this year, the local chapters are as well.

Gaining money through deception is a crime pretty much everywhere. I
doubt this would actually count as gaining money through deception,
though. The fact being misrepresented would probably be considered
immaterial. You would also struggle to prove that the donor wouldn't
have donated if they had realised what Sue's actual job title was. I
don't know the details of Australian laws on fraud, but I expect at
least one of those points would be enough to avoid any criminal
convictions. Let's not get sensational. The error is bad, but it isn't
criminal.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required

2010-12-09 Thread FT2

Sure (and in reply to your off-list mail, it's fine, easily done).

The questions seemed genuine and seeking a genuine explanation. If it's been
covered elsewhere that's good enough.

FT2

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.comwrote:

FT2,

Please let it go - I talked with Virgilio off-list yesterday; it sounds
like
he didn't mean to stir up a storm, and would rather this thread die.

Thanks,
Ryan

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:

That won't help much.

If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order
to
protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being
blocked for mentioning other users' names.

There are problems with this.

1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line the
only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title). Cases
exist (eg enwiki Arbcom)
2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be
different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and
their
internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going
to
persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on
some
other wiki.
3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For
example
on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's
real
name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is
the
difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the
second
case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending
on
context and community.
4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by
pt-arbcom*.
But nobody has said you were or weren't.

Hope this helps?

FT2

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt
wrote:

1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the
request
made.

2) No action is asked or expected.

These two personal commitments are important before answering an
absolutely legitimate request for clarification: why [is] this issue
of such [...] importance to the thread-creator.

It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado
and

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado

It is very important for the pt.wiki.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
following reports on Meta:

October 2010 -

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010

November 2010 -

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard

It is very important to the communities at large.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information
and

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Michael Snow

On 12/9/2010 3:03 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
 I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out,
 It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in
 Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job
 title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the
 donations this year, the local chapters are as well.
 -Peachey
You're not going to express an opinion on the merits of the question, 
but you're going to insinuate criminality is involved anyway? Come on, 
you're better than that. I've already indicated where I stand on this, 
but I find it embarrassing to have that position associated with 
debating tactics like this. It's a perfect example of why it's often so 
easy to dismiss our critics, when their approach involves such sleazy 
argumentation.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread John Vandenberg

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
 I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out,
 It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in
 Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job
 title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the
 donations this year, the local chapters are as well.

This is an important point to raise regarding cultural and legal
differences in regards to advertising, however the banner in question
is not appearing in Australia.

The Australian chapter is managing the banners and appeal text that
appear within Australia, and there is no way 'Wikipedia Executive
Director' would have been approved by the WMAu committee.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

Michael Snow wrote:
 On 12/9/2010 3:03 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
 I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out,
 It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in
 Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job
 title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the
 donations this year, the local chapters are as well.
 -Peachey
 You're not going to express an opinion on the merits of the question,
 but you're going to insinuate criminality is involved anyway? Come on,
 you're better than that. I've already indicated where I stand on this,
 but I find it embarrassing to have that position associated with
 debating tactics like this. It's a perfect example of why it's often so
 easy to dismiss our critics, when their approach involves such sleazy
 argumentation.

Calling Jimmy Wikipedia founder was already incredibly close to crossing
the line. Calling Sue Wikipedia Executive Director clearly crosses the
line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree.

While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy
tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Andrew Garrett

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is an important point to raise regarding cultural and legal
 differences in regards to advertising, however the banner in question
 is not appearing in Australia.

 The Australian chapter is managing the banners and appeal text that
 appear within Australia, and there is no way 'Wikipedia Executive
 Director' would have been approved by the WMAu committee.


For the record, I don't think that this arrangement is working well.

There are a lot of people working on the fundraiser, both Wikimedia staff
and hundreds of volunteers from the community. The Foundation has allocated
substantial staff and resources to running a campaign that is agile and
data-driven. In the United States, this has had a strong result -- US
editors stopped seeing the Jimmy banners (which people are getting tired of
despite their effectiveness) a week ago. Elsewhere in the world, bringing in
the new editor/Sue appeal banners has been held up by this sort of
bureaucracy.

If we believe (as I do) that the central fundraising team is the best team
for the job, then we should give them the ability to roll out their best
work quickly, without going through the bureaucratic quagmire of requiring
chapter approval for each special region. The rest of the world is missing
out on the best that they can do.

-- 
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Downtime error message turned into monolingual

KIZU Naoko wrote:
 I've got an error message in trying to access Japanese Wikipedia. It
 seems long, but it's not my topic.
 IIRC the message from server was multilingualized years ago and we
 have offered the message with links to other lang
 same messages.
 
 The message itself seems not changed from the past, but now it's in
 English and only without any links to any other language.
 
 What happened? Who decided to remove lang links? And what is the idea
 behind of this removal?

Hi.

I believe you're referring to this error message:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp;.

I remember it being multi-lingual as well. It was also enormous. I'm not
sure when or why it was shortened (though my suspicion is that it was
shortened because it was enormous). The planning for the message appears to
have taken place here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages

I don't see any bugs in Bugzilla off-hand about this being shortened to use
only English. There's a bug from June 2010 about the language selector being
broken: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23944  That gives a
shorter timeframe in which to look for the message being shortened (sometime
between June 2010 and December 2010).

You probably want to e-mail wikitech-l about this. I doubt many people on
this list will have much insight into this issue. Or file a bug in Bugzilla
to re-add multi-language support if you're feeling adventurous. The worst
case scenario is that it will be resolved as a duplicate bug.

Hope that helps.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Michael Snow

On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
 Calling Jimmy Wikipedia founder was already incredibly close to crossing
 the line. Calling Sue Wikipedia Executive Director clearly crosses the
 line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree.

 While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy
 tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism.
Which line are you talking about here? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a 
founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to 
claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on 
the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes 
any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does 
- but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to 
Sue as Wikipedia Executive Director, I find it inaccurate and 
confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process 
to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at 
communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our 
organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line 
as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it 
sleazy.

And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal 
behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to 
a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be 
defended against. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons 
various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil 
libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate 
tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

Michael Snow wrote:
 On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
 Calling Jimmy Wikipedia founder was already incredibly close to crossing
 the line. Calling Sue Wikipedia Executive Director clearly crosses the
 line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree.
 
 While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy
 tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism.
 Which line are you talking about here?

The line between what is and is not acceptable or defensible.

 Crediting Jimmy Wales as a founder of Wikipedia is indisputable.

Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

We should not rehash the co-founder vs. founder debate again, but I
think it's safe to say that there have been reasonable people who have
objected to the past Jimmy banners using the word founder.

 Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes,
 but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy.

Assuming good faith is what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was
simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that
people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong.
This is a fairly well established principle on Wikimedia wikis.

 And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal
 behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to
 a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be
 defended against.

K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia that he or she
believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be
suggesting that there is ambiguity here.

In any case, I'm told that the banners are being changed right now, so this
particular issue is likely going to be moot in very short order.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Zack Exley

OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.

I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard
the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they
simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will
continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient
explanations.

-- 
Zack Exley
Chief Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation




On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
  On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
  While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a
  variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for
 a
  project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as
  possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic
  level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we
  might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a
  messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing.
  That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic.
 
  That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you.
 
  And mine. My thanks too.
 
  To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a
  falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia
  community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from
  Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that
  Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power
  over editorial content.
 
 
  Delphine
 
 
 


 I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is
 understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding
 that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's
 independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and
 its projects.

 Nathan

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

2010-12-09 Thread Philippe Beaudette

Hi everyone -

First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.  Michael 
Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise 
the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for 
people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia.  
Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you tongue-in-cheek but there are people 
who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a mis-spelling of 
Wikipedia. /tongue-in-cheek.  When we get letters saying things like I'd 
donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia, it spells out for us that 
it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia 
than the institution of Wikimedia.  

Did we think it would be drahma free?  No.  Of course not.  But it was based 
on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions.  Suggesting 
that it was criminal is... well, regrettable.  I think that our data-driven 
approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this (hypothesize, 
test, measure, react) was in line with that method.  Obviously, this topic was 
more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this approach.

To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.  

With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say 
Wikimedia.  

pb

___
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

ofc: +1 415 839 6885 x6643 
mobile: +1 918 200 WIKI (9454)

pbeaude...@wikimedia.org

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in 
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://donate.wikimedia.org


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

Philippe Beaudette wrote:
 With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say
 Wikimedia.  

Thank you. :-)

I think you and the fundraising team this year have done a much, much better
job engaging and including the community than any past Wikimedia fundraiser.
This definitely has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. Keep up the good
work!

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread David Gerard

2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com:

 I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the
 list... But that seems to stopped working today?


Gmail is helpful and won't show you a copy of any email you sent.
And there's no way to get it to.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread Michael Snow

On 12/9/2010 4:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
 Michael Snow wrote:
 Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes,
 but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy.
 Assuming good faith is what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was
 simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that
 people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong.
They don't intend them to be wrong. They may actually be wrong, as I've 
said, but they are not intended to be wrong. That is why we assume good 
faith.
 And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal
 behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to
 a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be
 defended against.
 K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia that he or she
 believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be
 suggesting that there is ambiguity here.
No, K. Peachey avoided citing actions by not debating the whole wording 
thing that would establish what the action entailed, offering instead a 
generic description of criminal law that would encourage people, in 
passive-aggressive style, to draw their own conclusions about the 
supposed criminality involved. I can't tell whether K. Peachey believed 
the actions in question would be in violation of the law or not.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

2010-12-09 Thread Andreas Kolbe

--- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
 Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40
 I'm sorry we are putting more energy
 into what should be banned from commons instead of searching
 for mechanisms to protect those readers who would prefer to
 stay away from such content.
 
 I mean, I understand the problem with paedophilia, and why
 it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, but I think
 it is equally important to provide with the means to present
 the content to users in their desired level of exposure;
 tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content would do the
 trick, and it is technologically straightforward.
 
 Cheers,
 MarianoC

Such a system was indeed among the recommendations put forward by the 2010
Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling similar systems in 
place at major sites such as Google, youtube and flickr.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options

As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there are currently 144 
editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the policy. The community 
is almost exactly split down the middle.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29

Andreas


 --- El lun 6-dic-10, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
 escribió:
 
  De: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
  Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
 Controversial Content
  Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Fecha: lunes, 6 de diciembre de 2010, 17:09
  On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM,
  private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   Hi all,
  
   I thought I'd note for those interested in the
 latest
  from the
   community side of the 'controversial content'
  discussions - the
   Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone
 into a
  polling stage
   for the second time;
  
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
  
  thanks for sending this out, and I am glad to see the
  discussion/vote
  ongoing and hope to see lots of participation in it.
  
   I hope Phoebe doesn't mind me copying her in on
 this
  email, but I'd
   also like to follow up an enquiry about the
 working
  group she
   mentioned last month - it's here;
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoebe#G.27day_Phoebe
  
  And thanks for the prod... we've been slow to put
 together
  the working
  group that I mentioned in my last message, but it is
 still
  happening.
  In the meantime comments on the recommendations are
  certainly welcome.
  More soon, I hope!
  
  best,
  Phoebe



  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Downtime error message turned into monolingual

2010-12-09 Thread Peter Coombe

On 9 December 2010 23:50, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 KIZU Naoko wrote:
 I've got an error message in trying to access Japanese Wikipedia. It
 seems long, but it's not my topic.
 IIRC the message from server was multilingualized years ago and we
 have offered the message with links to other lang
 same messages.

 The message itself seems not changed from the past, but now it's in
 English and only without any links to any other language.

 What happened? Who decided to remove lang links? And what is the idea
 behind of this removal?

 Hi.

 I believe you're referring to this error message:
 http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp;.

 I remember it being multi-lingual as well. It was also enormous. I'm not
 sure when or why it was shortened (though my suspicion is that it was
 shortened because it was enormous). The planning for the message appears to
 have taken place here:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages


Are you sure you're not thinking of this message?
http://www.doxaliber.it/wp-uploads/images/wikipedia_down_big.jpg

I think you still get that one if there's a server problem, but short
of getting a plane to Florida and randomly flicking switches I can't
confirm that! Obviously it's good because its multilingual, but also
because it has a donate link.

The 404 error you linked to (http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp) could
certainly be improved, though as far as I know it's always been like
that. Absurd really, how many users who've mistyped an address are
going to want a database dump?

Pete / the wub

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

2010-12-09 Thread Stephen Bain

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 When we get letters saying things like I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, 
 not to Wikimedia, it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract 
 more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of 
 Wikimedia.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems some people assumed bad faith
before, when really we can see it was just a good-natured attempt to
deceive these people as to where their money would go.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Downtime error message turned into monolingual

Peter Coombe wrote:
 The 404 error you linked to (http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp) could
 certainly be improved, though as far as I know it's always been like
 that. Absurd really, how many users who've mistyped an address are
 going to want a database dump?

There's a bug about improving the 404 page:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17316

There's even a really nice design proposal attached to the bug:
http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=7633

It's just on the list, though.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

2010-12-09 Thread K. Peachey

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 No, K. Peachey avoided citing actions by not debating the whole wording
 thing that would establish what the action entailed, offering instead a
 generic description of criminal law that would encourage people, in
 passive-aggressive style, to draw their own conclusions about the
 supposed criminality involved. I can't tell whether K. Peachey believed
 the actions in question would be in violation of the law or not.

 --Michael Snow
No, I decided not to start debating yet again in this thread since
it's already been discussed weather or not we should have falsely
worded banners, and I'm sure there are other people than my self that
are more than happy to have such a discussion where I would prefer not
to.

What I did do was point out possible side effects for chapters should
these banners be ran in their areas using Australia as a example since
being a resident here, I have a some what limited knowledge on our
laws, Which from previous discussions on WMF mailing lists previously
and elsewhere, I have a understanding most places have similar ones in
place.

And as such believed that was very relevant to the subject being
discussed at hand.
-p858snake/peachey

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

2010-12-09 Thread Nathan

Thanks Zack and Phillippe, I think you guys made the right call. This
is exactly how Foundation action and community feedback should work. I
think we all appreciate your quick response to our concerns. I
disagree with any implication that your decision was in some way
immoral; your perspectives are different but your reasoning is sound.
I have faith in the Foundation staff and in this fundraiser team, and
I think you've been doing a fantastic job so far. Keep up the good
work.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

2010-12-09 Thread Andrew Garrett

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks for the explanation. It seems some people assumed bad faith
 before, when really we can see it was just a good-natured attempt to
 deceive these people as to where their money would go.

Maybe you're trying to be funny, but could you not?

-- 
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Downtime error message turned into monolingual

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Peter Coombe
thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10 December 2010 00:47, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 9 December 2010 23:50, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
KIZU Naoko wrote:
I've got an error message in trying to access Japanese Wikipedia. It
seems long, but it's not my topic.
IIRC the message from server was multilingualized years ago and we
have offered the message with links to other lang
same messages.

The message itself seems not changed from the past, but now it's in
English and only without any links to any other language.

What happened? Who decided to remove lang links? And what is the idea
behind of this removal?

Hi.

I believe you're referring to this error message:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp;.

I remember it being multi-lingual as well. It was also enormous. I'm not
sure when or why it was shortened (though my suspicion is that it was
shortened because it was enormous). The planning for the message appears to
have taken place here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages

Are you sure you're not thinking of this message?
http://www.doxaliber.it/wp-uploads/images/wikipedia_down_big.jpg

I think you still get that one if there's a server problem, but short
of getting a plane to Florida and randomly flicking switches I can't
confirm that! Obviously it's good because its multilingual, but also
because it has a donate link.

Good point!

The 404 error you linked to (http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp) could
certainly be improved, though as far as I know it's always been like
that. Absurd really, how many users who've mistyped an address are
going to want a database dump?

Pete / the wub

Ah disregard the first part of my message. Gmail wasn't including the
semicolon as part of your link. I copy pasted it to get the right one.

And thank you for noticing me/us it's somehow weird. Without the
entity amp it works - so we might find two things to fix. I'll
later file the bug on the entity related thing, it seems a pure
technical thing and need to dig up further here.

Yes, I definitely remember that being multilingual as well, wonder
what happened to it?

My comment about the 404 message being poor still stands though.

Pete / the wub

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -

First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage
to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to
confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated
with Wikipedia. Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you tongue-in-cheek
but there are people who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a
mis-spelling of Wikipedia. /tongue-in-cheek. When we get letters saying
things like I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia, it spells
out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the
institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.

Did we think it would be drahma free? No. Of course not. But it was
based on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions.
Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I think that our
data-driven approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this
(hypothesize, test, measure, react) was in line with that method. Obviously,
this topic was more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this
approach.

Thank you for your detailed explanation. It isn't far from what I've
imagined: most of us at the community remember the discussion on
another recent CentralNotice Work at Wiki[m|p]edia. So regardless of
its evaluation, I guess most of us didn't doubt it was intended on a
good faith to improve something. I'm happy to see you brave to admit
it was more sensitive than you at the team had presumed, perhaps more
sensitive work at wheresoever, and again, as a Wikiquotian someone
who is concerned with the linguistic diversity of this project,
personally I appreciate your quick reaction to change it.

To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.

For the record, I at least felt not offended ;)

With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say
Wikimedia.

;) Again, thanks!

___
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

ofc: +1 415 839 6885 x6643
mobile: +1 918 200 WIKI (9454)

pbeaude...@wikimedia.org

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

http://donate.wikimedia.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?