Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/28/2011 10:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wrote: >> On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathanwrote: Which activities are these? >>> Copyright and internet law lobbying. >> This is incorrect. > Michael, > > Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? I don't believe I have seen it, no. I gather from the other comments it contains language about grant recipients complying with US law. Without a more thorough review, I'm not in a position to say how necessary such language is or how extensively it would be interpreted with respect to a chapter's overall activities. However, it doesn't change my point that nonprofits can in fact engage in lobbying under US law. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:03, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to >> "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology. >> >> Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of >> the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized >> economy. >> >> The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said "Sparrows are guilty >> for everything!" After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have >> been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for >> grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of >> great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China >> abandoned centralized economy. >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer >> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine >> >> > Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are > normally seed eaters. Actually, found article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote: >>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. >> Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the >> central planning is economically successful. > Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires > explanation. So here it is: > > Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to > "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology. > > Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of > the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized > economy. > > The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said "Sparrows are guilty > for everything!" After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have > been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for > grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of > great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China > abandoned centralized economy. > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine > > Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are normally seed eaters. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] editor survey report
Hey everyone, I wanted to share the final report from the Editor Survey. It is available as a PDF and in wiki format. You can find the links to the PDF and wiki report here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011 Here is the accompanying blog post on release of the report and data: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/08/29/report-for-editor-survey-april-2011/ Our report is a first cut at data analysis, and we are hoping that community members and researchers will conduct additional analysis. To facilitate further analysis we are releasing raw anonymized data from the survey. The raw data is available in data dumps, if you are interested in delving into the data and conducting analysis, you can find it here: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/editorsurvey2011/* * Along with the CSV file, we have also made available the codebook and accompanying documentation on methodology for data anonymization. * *Thanks* *in advance, Mani -- Mani Pande, PhD Head of Global Development Research Wikimedia Foundation 415-882-7981 ext 6721 Twitter: manipande Skype: manipande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Year: 2011 Week: 36 Number: 125
** ____ _ __ _ / / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___ \ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ /| | <| |/ /| | | | | __/ \/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___| .org Year: 2011 Week: 36 Number: 125 ** An independent internal news bulletin for the members of the Wikimedia community // === Community === [Stewards election] - Candidate submission will last up to September 7th. Voting will be held between September 15th and October 6th. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2011-2 [Writing contest] - In 2004 the Dutch language Wikipedia was the first Wikipedia to organize a writing contest. Now at the 1th of September already the 8th edition will start and run for 2 months. Users can work alone or in a team on an article of their choice. At the end the jury will award the prizes to the winners; an image of the trophy they can put on their user pages. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schrijfwedstrijd [Research committee] - Next Research committee meeting will be held on September 2nd. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee/Meetings/Meeting_2011-09-02 [Project closures] - Scots Wikipedia proposed for closure; proposal rejected during the same day. Proposals for Inuktitut and Old English Wikipedias closure rejected, while proposal for Asturianu Wikibooks closure accepted using the standard procedure. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Scots_Wikipedia http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Inuktitut_Wikipedia_2 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Inuktitut_Wikipedia_2 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Old_English_Wikipedia http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Asturianu_Wikibooks http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy === Other news === [WikiLoves Monuments] - Have a date with a monument and send the proof to Commons! And, you never know, you may win one of many nice prizes. WikiLoves Monuments is project in 18 European countries to get quality pictures of important items of cultural heritage. It is organized by national groups, with the exception of the program representing the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - which is one project that crosses state lines and includes several languages. The project takes the form of an image contest. The user needs to upload their pictures to Commons in September. A national jury, depending on the country where the monument is located, will judge and proclaim the winners and award prizes. But the best prize is to get freely licensed pictures of our heritage out there. http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu/ --- see menu at the right for list of participating country's http://tinyurl.com/3bzt2oc -- Wikimedia Germany about WikiLoves Monuments (google translation) === Technical news === [AbuseFilter] - this is an extension for MediaWiki, which helps prevent vandalism on wikis, and is now active on all wikis. Before you needed to ask (via a bugzilla request) to enable it for your wiki. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/08/24/filter-preventing-abusive-edits-all-wikis/ http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/54632 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter -- documentation about it === Foundation === [Results are in] - ... of the editor survey of April 2011. The actual report is available as a PDF on Meta. But there is also an extensive summary on Meta. And if that is also too long to read for you - check out the Wikipedia Signpost - they will probably give a short summary of it. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/08/29/report-for-editor-survey-april-2011/ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011 -- actual report here! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011/Executive_Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost === Chapters === [Wikipedia.no] - YES! - The Chapter Wikimedia Norway has unanimously decide to make the domain wikipedia.no a portal page instead of pointing it to the bokmål version of Wikipedia. In many countries the first thing internet users enter is +national TLD when they look for a website. By sharing this important internet real estate other, mostly very small, Wikipedias in languages of that county get exposure to visitors. Others, like wikipedia.be and wikipedia.be made this change long ago. Some, like wikipedia.de , choose not to. http://www.wikipedia.no http://tinyurl.com/3l7cchr -- WM Norway press release about it (Google translation) [Chapters Planet] - There are many WM Chapters so a special blog aggregator for all the postings by them seemed to be a good idea. User Bence, a student in Hungary, i
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote: >> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. > > Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the > central planning is economically successful. Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires explanation. So here it is: Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology. Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy. The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said "Sparrows are guilty for everything!" After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow > wrote: > > On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote: > >>> Which activities are these? > >> Copyright and internet law lobbying. > > This is incorrect. > > Michael, > > Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? > > -- > John Vandenberg I hadn't seen this document before, but have now. I retract my comment regarding the chapters being required to comply with U.S. law. I'm not sure what the full justification for the language in the agreement is, and I'd be interested to hear it explained by an expert. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote: > But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic wrote: > That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities. > Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger > chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that > will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will > become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some > money and you don't do that. Several chapter representatives already consider WMF's grant programme dysfunctional. The centralisation plan requires the infrastructure to support it, and an assumption of reliability (which is a much stronger requirement than assuming good faith) on those expected to live substantially off grants assigned by the mechanism. But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:24, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters >> should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't >> complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build >> infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them >> on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it. > > anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem. > anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are. > These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to > say "NONE" in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form. What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is their problem. What would WMF do: * If it finds in a program, it would say: Please, find funds for that at some other place. * If it finds too late, chapter for sure wouldn't be internally responsible if it doesn't have a person with relevant knowledge. That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities. Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some money and you don't do that. And about chapters: There are two chapters' Board representatives. And their term is going to be expired in half of the year or so. If chapters are not happy with their current representation, they should choose other persons to take care about their interests. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > .. > > I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters > should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't > complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build > infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them > on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it. anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem. anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are. These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to say "NONE" in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55, Lodewijk wrote: > John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I > understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives > a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism > laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho > chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot > reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise. > > It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't > know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar > requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the > board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. > > Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to > hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter > except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve. > > The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the > board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and > doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being > appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really > transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but > (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects > the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, > and not hide behind non-reasons. I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise. It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve. The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons. Lodewijk 2011/8/29 John Vandenberg > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow > wrote: > > On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote: > >>> Which activities are these? > >> Copyright and internet law lobbying. > > This is incorrect. > > Michael, > > Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? > > -- > John Vandenberg > > ___ > 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] Re : foundation-l Digest, Vol 89, Issue 76
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge > wrote: > > If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the > WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it > requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within > particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws > of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the > FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt > that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash > will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better > to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than > to play the role of a distrustful parent. > We could also have the case where a chapter does better than the foundation for some parts of its accomptabilty. Even if they are "a small band of individuals unaccustomed" they have no choice than to respect the local laws in some countries much more demanding for the charities that the U.S. laws.And they are motivated volonteers to do so. Let's give two examples with the WMFr accomptability. If as WMFr treasurer I'd like to release for French members and donators the same kind of certified report than the KPMG stamped WMF financial report, it would just be impossible under the French laws. Because under this laws, this report is not enough precise, not enough understandable (for example, try to know, if you have no US accountings knowlegde or even if you have, how much the foundation spends for servers, programmers wages and all of the IT stuff in the KPMG report...). As treasorer of a French general interest association which collecting donations from public, I have to provide a financial report far more accurate than the WMF one but also supplemented by a document understandable by people with no accounting abilities (call "Compte Emploi Ressources", could be roughly translated by "Use and Ressources account"). This document must shows in a simply but very precise way how much have been collected, how much have been used and for what. And this document, as the financial report, must be certified by our public auditor ( "Commissaire aux comptes" aka accounting commissioner). Our public auditor presents his reports to our general assembly, answers audiences questions (his responses to this questions have the same official commitment than its writtens comments of our accounts and governance and must be recorded) and then our general assembly vote to approve, or not, this two documents. This public auditor not only certifies our accountings, he also checks and certified for stakeholders (donators, members, states autorities, etc.) that we respect the laws, the differents contracts and agreements WMFr has signed and our goals as defined in our statutes. For 2010, he particulary focused to check if we had got tax lawyer advice before our funds transfer to the foundation and that both WMFr and the WMF follow this advice, if all our donators have received their tax exemption receipt, if we have paid all the social insurance, retirement funds for our employee, ask me to explain how WMFr checks all the credit card donations go to our bank account or how I had calculate the number of volonteers hours written in our documents, and few others things I do not have in mind now. He has a mandatory access to all documents the WMFr board releases to all its stakeholders (members included so, he has an access to our internal wiki) If we keep too much money collected by a appeal for donations on our bank account, he will made a written comments that will ask us not to fundraise until we have spent the money for the use we ask donations. And not respect this kind of written comments could lead us to lose our charities status and the tax deductability. And no way for the WMFr board to fire its Commissaire aux comptes because he is too demanding or too picky. The appointment of this public auditor is validated by a vote of all the members during a general assembly and he is appointed for 6 years, not revocable during this time, to avoid any pressure from the board. As you can see, lots of legal constraints. And I believe some of this legal constraints, are quite the same in several European chapters as the rules for charities using donations from the public have been hardened this last few years in the European Union. And as far as I know, this rules are harder than those applied to US charities 501 (c). That's means, if a small group of volonteers could reach a such level of certified information for donators, WMF, much more staffed than any chapter, could also reach it or even do better, even i'ma aware that the WMF accountings is more complex than a chapter one. In my opinion, in a wikimedian good practices assesment, WMF should implement a such certified "Use and Ressources account" easely understandable by everyone, with no accounting knowl
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > I can still, today, as an anon, remove or add > images as I see fit. This is permitted and even encouraged, provided > that what I am doing is sane (And thus most likely meets consensus). > Tried it lately? pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
