Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
George Herbert writes: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: >> Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger >> setting. > I respectfully request that you review it and reconsider. Request denied. I stand by what I said, and you can be polite from here to eternity, but I consider Delerium a kook in his own right, nonwithstanding a seemingly thin veneer of civility in this case. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Delirium writes: > Anders Wegge Keller wrote: >> Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum >> at this list? > In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that > even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging > to nonprofit organizations that depend on public goodwill? Except for being the umpteent person to continue the line of aggressive questioning, none. You just happened to be the unlucky roll of the dice. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
George Herbert writes: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: >> Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum >> at this list? > I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comment here is reasonable, > accurate, and a legitimate concern, as opposed to some of the rest > of the thread. Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger setting. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Delirium writes: > There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to > avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, > and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements. Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list? -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser update
geni writes: >> Having no banners and no servers to serve the artuicles are even >> worse. Having payed the dangeld to get rid of them, I think most are >> happy being acknowledged for the fact. > You miss the point. The banners are not fundraising any more (unless > you collapse them) Most of the whining you have seen is about the actual fundraising banners. Unless you google alaert for wikipedia and wikimedia gives you other results than mine. >> I don't agree on that point. Having extorted 6+ million $ out of >> the readers with a Jesus headline, and then switching the thank you >> note to leagal flyspeck, would send the wrong signal. If we NEED >> Joe Bloggs meney, we'd better THANK him in the same way. Otherwise >> he may OVERLOOK the plea next time it comes around. > Any evidence for those claims? And how about thanking him by not > degrading his wikipedia experience? I claim nothing else than it's my own opinion. Excuse me for getting that part wrong (I'm not a native english speaker), but I would've thought that "I think" would indicate that. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser update
geni writes: > 2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller : >> Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without >> opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take >> this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your >> assesment. And since you haven't mentioned it by now, I will not >> accept any delayed claims to the opposite. > This only works if you are seriously trying to suggest that there > are people who feel that large banners add to the wikipedia > experience. I think that the large majority who doesn't feel the need to whine about them accepts them as a nescesary thing to fund WM. > Most people come to wikipedia to read articles. Generally having > font-size: 33 banners between the top of the page and the article is > not a good way to facilitate this. Having no banners and no servers to serve the artuicles are even worse. Having payed the dangeld to get rid of them, I think most are happy being acknowledged for the fact. > Now we can agree that fundraising banners that size are apparently > effective which is good but thankyou banners that size less so. If a > thank you is required one the size of the collapsed banner would > appear to suffice. I don't agree on that point. Having extorted 6+ million $ out of the readers with a Jesus headline, and then switching the thank you note to leagal flyspeck, would send the wrong signal. If we NEED Joe Bloggs meney, we'd better THANK him in the same way. Otherwise he may OVERLOOK the plea next time it comes around. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser update
geni writes: > Because I run daily searches of blogs for the term > wikipedia. Because complaints have turned up all over the place on > wikipedia. Because or editors who also have to read the thing have > gone so far as to have a gadget to get rid of it. Because adblock > which targets banner ads among other things has 10,850,228 dowloads. Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your assesment. And since you haven't mentioned it by now, I will not accept any delayed claims to the opposite. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission
Michael Snow writes: > Rather, the point is that there's a sense the ombudsman commission, > as currently constituted, has not been a fully satisfactory answer > to the potential scope of issues. Now one reaction might simply be a > change in personnel, but I think this is an appropriate point to > reconsider the structure as well. I think the structure need changing. I was one of the first three ombudsmen, and I'm not satisfied with the very little I've done. One of the problems was of course that it was a completely new organization, with a very loosely defined task. Personally, I never got into the job because of this ad-hocery. So I think that if the present setup with three outside persons are to be kept, that the terms should be three times the interval between selecting a new member, so some continuity and routine could be retained. Otherwise it will be an uphill struggle for each new generation of ombudsmen. -- /Wegge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
