Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction. Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be Wikipedia è rotto. It's a shitty law. I don't think anyone on this list disagrees. This morning I read up on the Amanda Knox case for the first time, and it seems that the Italian system of law has a lot to answer for. (I think, anyway—my first source for information on Italian law was just made unavailable to me.) Let's say that I'm an American, and I'm studying Italian in memory of my late godparents, Grandma Jan and Papa Joe Giacinto, second-generation immigrants who frequently spoke Italian around the house during my childhood. Or I'm one of over one million people in the U.S. who speak Italian at home, or I'm from Switzerland, or I'm... well, you get the idea. We're supposed to be about free access to knowledge, and because 40 angry people said so, I'm only able to access the Italian Wikipedia if I download a weeks-old database dump, set up MySQL, Apache, and MediaWiki, and host my own server? A strike means you stop working. If you want to stop editing, so be it. itwiki is going a step further, however, and undeniably hindering a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. All this because of a proposed law in one country, not mutually exclusive with the language. If San Marino were to pass such a law, would we be here? Austin [0] http://austinhair.org/itwiki.png ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Make a logout and after make a new login. I wasn't logged in, to begin with. I was looking at it as any casual reader would. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections? That's stupid. I think that was his point. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Jalo jal...@gmail.com wrote: To me, it works. Which browser are you using? Firefox 7.0.1 on OS X 10.6.6, not logged into anything. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Showdown
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt wrote: The evidence is in. http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Portuguese_Wikipedia_language_issues/Recomenda%C3%A7%C3%B5es_de_sentido_%C3%BAnicoWanton vandalism Your move. I'm not sure whose move it is, exactly, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm out of turn. You've been given more chances than usual, Virgilio, but I'm afraid enough is finally enough. The list administrators will be monitoring your next several posts until we're convinced that you can maintain a decent civility:trolling ratio. Best regards, Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Election results?
It's now the afternoon of the 17th (UTC), and this list—of which I have the dubious distinction of being custodian—hasn't seen a single thread about the WMF board election results. I'm honestly not sure if I should be proud of or disappointed with you guys. In any case, I beg your forgiveness when I myself ask: What are the results, and why haven't they been released yet? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Election results?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote: As the Board Liaison for the election committee I would like to ask for a little more patience on their behalf. Our chosen election system has several checks and balances and it does not help matters that we are making use of an independent third party and are spread out across several time zones. Thank you Amir, as you stated: they are volunteers too. And I recall it was very hard trying to get people to volunteer for this rather thankless job (please feel free to volunteer for the next elections) It shouldn't be thankless, so let me express my sincere appreciation to Abbas, Jon, Mardetanha, Matanya, and Ryan. I know that it's not easy, and I know that getting it right is more important than getting it fast. I won't speak for anyone else's motivations, but let me be clear that I was only looking for something, anything, updating us on an overdue deadline that many of us—the candidates, surely not the least—are eagerly awaiting. And yes, it's easy to let personal curiosity get overtaken by a feeling of righteous indignation, but I have to say that a message from ElecCom would have been really nice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Election results?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Domas Mituzas wrote: I'm told volunteers are capable of editing wiki pages and posting to mailing lists. I haven't been able to independently verify this, though. I'm told that some volunteers can be extremely obnoxious too. Eh, don't be so hard on yourself. Sometimes you have something useful to say. Now, now, everyone be nice. The moderation button isn't that far from me. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:32 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get this. Would it be possible in future, if the sites are unresponsive, or will be unresponsive due to planned maintenance, to establish a fallback that simply displays an explanatory status message to the public? Would it have changed anything for you? I tried to load Wikipedia a few times during the downtime, and a maintenance error actually did appear most of the time. I did get a few database errors, but I assumed that I wasn't the first to notice and that someone was diligently working on it. Regardless, my action was the same as it would have been in any case: try back later. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: That's interesting, what was the wording for the maintenance message? I only ever saw the default our servers are experiencing a technical problem error page. I could be misremembering, because I honestly didn't care that much, but I do believe I saw the word maintenance in there somewhere. Either way, it was as informative as any message could be under the circumstances—unless, as Tim already addressed, you wanted a developer assigned to updating the message in real time. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: This is the error message that appeared for me (and apparently others): http://nomulous.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wikipedia_error.png I won't continue arguing about whether or not it should say planned, but I do have to say that I love probably temporary. (That, or Wikipedia has gone offline FOREVER.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for moderation of Dan Rosenthal and Andrew Garrett
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt wrote: After a cool off period of about 48 hours and considerable reflection, it is my conviction that the posts of two above mentioned editors should be moderated from now on. As administrators, it's our policy not to take punitive action. We only use moderation to prevent likely repeat offenders from further disrupting the list. Andrew Garrett (who, as others have noted, was actually defending you—I understand that this isn't something you're used to, after all these years) is not a troll and, while blunt, is generally not disruptive. Dan Rosenthal is not always the friendliest in his interactions with the list, and has been moderated before, but I see no reason to do so again at this time. And that's all I intend to say in reply. You don't even get my traditional folksy guys, be nice line for this one. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] BNR: Less writers on wikipedia due to agression (dutch)
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: See http://www.bnr.nl/programma/bnrdigitaal/2011/03/30/minder-schrijvers-wikipedia-door-agressie1 Dit is niet nieuw, natuurlijk. I've lived in the Netherlands for a year, now, and I've never heard of BNR—but then, I don't listen to the radio; I still get most of my news from teh internets and the satellite dish I have pointed at the BBC. How influential are they? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia ZA] Wikimedia ZA APPROVED!
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Lourie Pieterse louriepiete...@yahoo.com Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:44 AM Subject: [Wikimedia ZA] Wikimedia ZA APPROVED! To: WikimediaZA wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org The chapter just got approved by the WMF! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_South_Africa Congratulations, you guys—you worked hard for it and it paid off. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com wrote: Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. I don't think the point here is to increase voter turnout, though—rather, it's to prevent people who do quite a lot of off-wiki work to support Wikimedia, people who probably have more interest than most in the composition of the Board, from being unfairly disenfranchised as they (okay, we) have been in past elections. Incidentally, if the requirements are lowered as proposed, I can vote for the first time in three years! (Assuming I can vote from meta, that is.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com: Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! So, Jon posted this just four hours ago, specifically pointing to a page on meta, and there are now more than 20 on-list replies. I've seen a lot of great ideas, but for the benefit of those who aren't subscribed to this list, perhaps we can try to keep the discussion there? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com: Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! So, Jon posted this just four hours ago, specifically pointing to a page on meta, and there are now more than 20 on-list replies. I've seen a lot of great ideas, but for the benefit of those who aren't subscribed to this list, perhaps we can try to keep the discussion there? (And yes, I know Jon said you could reply here—this is just a personal request, because I'm already seeing crosstalk.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Steward election issues
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:55 PM, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA meriaherre...@live.com.mx wrote: NO ENTIENDO INGLES . POR FAVOR ESPAÑOL...GRACIAS Hola, Maria, Hablamos inglés en esta lista. Quizás usted prefiere la lista de la Wikipedia en español, que se encuentra en https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikies-l. Lo siento, pero Ud. está prohibido de esta lista ahora. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] multilingual mailing list
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:17 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Do we have a multilingual mailing list? I think it would be a good idea to have a general discussion list where anyone, especially newbies, can write in their preferred language. Someone in our community is sure to understand and be able to respond. This *is* a multilingual list. All languages are welcome here. The issue with Meria's messages have been that she's just been saying the same thing over and over again: please write in Spanish. If she wanted to respond to something in Spanish, that would have been fine. Casey's right—this is, in fact, the official policy of the list. You can write in whatever language you want, just don't expect much of a reply if you do it in a language that only three other people on the list understand. My reply to Maria was overly simplistic and dismissive, but only because (a) she was just writing I don't speak English, Spanish please, and (b) she did it like six times. If my head were back in California, I could perhaps have given her a better reply, and it's somewhat regrettable that my Spanish skills went down the toilet when I moved to the (no longer Spanish) Netherlands. (As an aside, does anyone know the appropriate Spanish verb for to moderate in this context? I didn't actually ban her, I just couldn't come up with a better word.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Steward election issues
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: However... wikies-l is about spanish wikipedia issues, and certainly not the place to talk with people related to foundation/wikimedia global matters. No, certainly not. But given that she typed NO ENTIENDO several times, in all caps, I'm not sure she intended to be here in the first place. At the very least, wikies-l could point her in the right direction. I understand the ban, but it only highlights the underlying problems for communication in a multilingual community: channels become monolongual and those not knowing the language will just not be able to participate This is certainly a problem, and not unique to Wikimedia. Better automatic translation software certainly helps, but only if you are willing and able to use it. I think most of the people on this list are willing, but senders like Maria frequently aren't able. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The matrix, reloaded (movement roles, or who does what in Wikimedia?)
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense to me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement. What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and responsibility is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is Globally, or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is Support groups, tells me precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work needed, and so on. Well, that's sort of the point. It's the start of something that we hope to have extensive community input on—it's the first step, not the last. Thirteen people brainstormed over the course of a few hours two weeks ago, and we wanted to throw what we had out there so everyone has a chance to participate. The definition of groups is particularly vague, as noted in the description. It's not something that I expect to resolve this week or next, but with some help we might have it mostly clarified within a few months. If you have specific questions, let's discuss! There's plenty of space on the wiki, and I'm happy to address stuff on this list and make sure it's integrated into the main body of work. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The matrix, reloaded (movement roles, or who does what in Wikimedia?)
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I left a message on the talk page about the definition of groups in the context of Movement Roles Project last week. I also brought this up in the IRC hour a week ago. I know the intention here is to be as inclusive as possible, but can we start to classify what groups are expected to be included in the project. A little more clarification about these groups would be greatly helpful either on wiki or the mailing list. I would assume that chapters are one such groups that are definitely going to be included in the classification, if so, can we at least include them somewhere so people have a general idea here about the context or what's expected. Groups is definitely the vaguest part of the roles matrix. Figuring out what that means is what we're doing now, and it will surely be refined as the project goes on. As used in the working session that produced the matrix, groups was anything between one person and a Wikimedia chapter. How that's defined is something that's dogged everyone who's worked with Wikimedia organizations (and non-organizations, and un-organizations, c.) since Wikimedians started organizing. Nobody has that definition, so far—it's this project's goal to find one. There's clearly a gray area between one random dude and Wikimedia Deutschland or WMF Inc.—one of the great things about what we do is having random people get together and do stuff, with varying levels of organization. The idea is to clarify who does what, and how that entity works with related entities. There's currently a copy of the matrix[0] that anyone can edit. If you think that it needs more discussion, there's also a talk page[1], which is anxiously looking for contributors. If I can clarify anything else about the process, please ask. Austin [0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix#The_Roles_Matrix:_Reloaded [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Showing the difference between the sexes
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: And do you want it to be implemented :) But that question is to be answered on a community level of course - but I guess there are a few potential reasons why they might not want to implement it: [...] * Although grammatically correct, I would find gebruikster in Dutch very weird - because it is rarely used it would put a huge emphasis on the fact that someone is female - this will depend per language. In English, of course, Userette would be even worse, being totally contrived. Like with many European languages, the masculine is the default and feminine suffixes are added only for emphasis, which is pretty anti-feminist, and it doesn't help that the feminine forms are related to or even the same as the diminutive forms. And so we're systematically eliminating words like stewardess and usherette. (Though we've introduced new forms like chairwoman and gentlelady, so we're not exactly consistent.) As I understand it, the Dutch word for secretary has two different connotations based on the gender applied. Secretaris is more like UN General Secretary, while secretaresse is someone who does your typing and gets you coffee. I don't tink Dutch is unique in that. * I'm no expert in the field, but I can imagine some issues around transgender people Not touching that one, but yes. etc. I would be a supporter of making it possible for a community to make this choice, but I would not like us to make that choice for them. I would have taken this for granted, but I don't think it's a strictly linguistic issue, and I'm not sure it's even something that should be determined on a wiki-by-wiki basis. It seems more like an individual preference to me. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Showing the difference between the sexes
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Lodewijk: Gerard, this wouldn't really help to attract more new female users. Could you please tell me why? I can set my preferences to male or female, but i can't see my user page with my real gender. And yes, that is a matter of choice, you can say that not every girl will like to be called usuária or Gebruikster or Benutzerin, but if you guys change the MediaWiki they can have the power to chose. And right now we don't have that, do we? I won't speak for Lodewijk, but what I understood him to mean was that you wouldn't know about the feature until you've already created an account, so it doesn't *attract* them. One might argue that it helps *keep* them, but that's a different matter. Austin: Like with many European languages, the masculine is the default and feminine suffixes are added only for emphasis, which is pretty anti-feminist, and it doesn't help that the feminine forms are related to or even the same as the diminutive forms. Anti feminist and partenalist is see several guys deciding what we want or don't want in our user pages. We are not here to change French or German grammar, if the feminine is made by adding a sufix, is a local language problem (btw, in portuguese, the male version is also a sufix, so is usuário / usuária). Again here we are not change grammar, we are only talking about give girls the possibility to be called by the right form in the MediaWiki system. Austin: It seems more like an individual preference to me. It is a individual preference. But a preference you people don't seems to want us to decide if we want of not. I think you misunderstand me. I think it *should* be an individual preference. What I argue against is making that decision for everyone. Lodewijk is worried about making that decision for communities whose linguistic and/or cultural norms might be different; I take it one step further and say the individual should be able to do that, if it's to be done at all. (And as long as we're picking nits: I don't speak Portuguese, but I do speak Spanish, so I'm guessing that one male user and three female users are still collectively usuários?) But back to your first point: Lodewijk and Thomas: so why change it to something causing problems all over the place, not only technical ones? Why? Maybe to call a girl by her real gender. The problems you both listed are not real problems. The male version is only used if you don't know the gender. But all wikimedia know that Sue (for example) is a girl, so why we still need to see a male word in her user page? This may be important to you in your language, but it may not be important to others (in fact, they might resent being explicitly labeled as a woman), if it's even a distinction made in that language. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment. I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here. Personally, I can't say that I care much about new OTRS requirements—WMF obviously has all the information it could possibly want from me, and what's apparently being proposed doesn't offend me in the slightest. I have to say, though, that Birgitte put this very well. Favoring gossip over straight answers doesn't sit well with me, even if it works better for the staff schedule. And yes, others have been right to point out that while otrs-en-l may be the de facto list for OTRS discussion, it's still limited to the info-en crowd and not really a fair forum for policy decisions. Speaking only for myself, Austin ___ 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
2010/12/10 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com: 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. The issue there is that you're not getting a 404 (not found) error, but rather a 403 (forbidden) error, which isn't a distinction that most people care about, but is certainly unexpected behavior. Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up elsewhere. Austin ___ 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
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up elsewhere. Where you will be told that this is 'working as intended'. amp; is usually sent in URLs by broken clients, so we block them as early as possible. With a 403 forbidden error? Do you really think that's semantically correct? 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?
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
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] foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 3
2010/12/3 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com: I mailed to all moderators but I guess none of them are online in this timezone? Sorry about that. I was awake (I'm in CET), but I hadn't looked at my e-mail in 30 minutes or so. I suspect we'll never hear from him again, but if he does manage to write something coherent, naturally we'll let it through. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Movement roles
Hi all, The Movement Roles project continues, and many people with many unique perspectives are already actively participating. For those of you not closely following our work on the wiki[0], I want to bring two things to your attention: 1. We will have a meeting on IRC[1] today, 5 November, at 1500 UTC. As before, it will take place in the #wikimedia-roles channel on irc.freenode.net. Use your favorite IRC client, or participate via http://webchat.freenode.net/ 2. We're developing a fact base[2] of information about the various entities within the Wikimedia movement, which we hope everyone will contribute to. I've personally prepopulated the page with links for chapters and a few other groups off the top of my head, but please don't interpret that as an exhaustive or definitive list—add anything you think might be relevant. Those of you involved with such groups are especially encouraged to populate the individual pages, because if you leave it up to me I'll probably get several things wrong. And just a general reminder that we're looking for anyone and everyone interested to engage, because the output is dependent on the input, and the more the better. It's a wiki—edit! Best, Austin [0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group/Movement_fact_base ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Survey about recent ban
Just for your information, Houston Navarro has been moderated for being Greg Kohs. Pro tip: bcc'ing a bunch of list subscribers with a fake [Foundation-l] subject isn't very sneaky, particularly when the return-path header says thekoh...@gmail.com. Greg, the sooner you grow up, the happier the world will be. Austin -- Forwarded message -- From: Houston Navarro houstonnava...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:57 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Survey about recent ban To: What is your opinion about the Foundation-l mailing list moderators' action to ban Gregory Kohs from all mailing list activity? Cast your vote: http://www.vizu.com/poll-vote.html?n=223459 Password = Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? Any professor would flunk you for citing an encyclopedia—any encyclopedia—as a reference. I was homeschooled, and my mother would have slapped me in the head for not finding a primary source. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? How is that relevant? You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied. If I misapplied the transitive property, I apologize. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? How is that relevant? You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied. A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though. You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attack pages at Encyc. Dramatica
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: Encyc. Dramatica seems too take pride in creating attack pages regarding Wikipedians. Of course they are exposing themselves to libel suits but looking at some of the rest of their site this seems to be the least of their worries with a great deal of racist content as well as underage pornography. Wondering if we have any measures available to deal with these attacks against Wikipedia? Or have others who have considered this issue feel that attempting anything would 1) be futile 2) just promote the creation / promotion of more such content. Well, Encyclopedia Dramatica is a special sort of case that seasoned veterans of the Internet recognize, and is probably best described as satire taken to (or even beyond) an extreme (a la 4chan). It may not always be appreciated, but ED editors generally aren't writing with malice, and if they are it's so absurd that nobody really gets hurt over it. Hell, I'm on ED, and I'm not filing a libel suit. If they violate local laws, that's up to those government agencies to enforce, but if Wikimedians were go go on a crusade against them I think you'd wind up with #2. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I am listening, and do hear what you are saying, Fred. But banishment from something, whether it be from a working project or a country, means that person is being openly, or even surreptitiously, destructive of the body, the substance, of the project or country, not merely being critical of it. Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia? That is, in fact, exactly what we, the list administrators, finally concluded. A minor correction, however: it was his contribution to the mailing list we were assessing, not to Wikipedia or any other project. (Though, given that he's been banned from at least two of them, that would have been a much easier case to make.) Greg Kohs went beyond being merely critical (which is welcome, and even encouraged) to the point of being antisocial and counterproductive. He did so to such an extent that it was actively preventing civil discourse. And could we please stop the disingenuousness of calling what is clearly censorship, moderation? Moderation is the technical term for it, and and you can call it censorship if you like, but your term carries an obvious bias. I've been taking time out of my day to regularly log into the list administration interface to make sure nobody's posts were unnecessarily delayed, and I personally haven't rejected a single one from Peter Damian so far. I expect that we'll probably take him off moderation soon, if only to relieve the burden on the administrators. And, when someone's constant (and seemingly only) answer to anyone who doesn't agree with them is to call them a name - like troll, the accusation should bounce right back to the accuser. In psychology it's called projection. The funny thing about projection, of course, is that it's so easy to call it out as recursive. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Movement roles update and meeting on 21 October
At its meeting on 9 October, the Movement Roles working group presented an update on its current work and an outline for the coming year. Thanks to everybody who participated in the preparation of the proposal. The Board approved the direction of the group, and encouraged all interested parties, particularly chapters and other stakeholders as outlined in the proposal, to engage in the process. You can find the proposal on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal After working mainly on the framing of the process over the past weeks, we're now starting with the real work. For example, over the next few months we will be reaching out to hear from a broad range of Wikimedians. For anybody who wants to engage in the process or just wants to learn more about the movement roles project we will have an open meeting next Thursday. The agenda will be to update you on progress to date, lay out the process going forward, and to find out how you might be able to help us. Please join us at 1500 UTC on Thursday, 21 October on IRC in the #wikimedia-roles channel. If you do not have an IRC client, you can join using a web browser: go to http://webchat.freenode.net/, type in the nickname of your choice, and choose #wikimedia-roles as the channel. If you're interested in participating in the process and can't make it to the open meeting, you can send an e-mail to adh...@gmail.com, or comment on-wiki—see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project. We are particularly interested to hear your answers to the list of questions we plan to ask Wikimedians, which you can see at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Questionnaire On behalf of the working group, Austin Hair ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled? Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely unable to keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than constructive discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally acceptable. We really are very liberal about this—otherwise you wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months. I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was retaliatory. I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this list. I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far. Regards, Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
Hi guys, After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member. Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l. Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on moderation for the indefinite future. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo
Peter has been placed on moderation as a preventive measure. If future posts are still civil, irrespective of sanity considerations, we'll let them through. Austin On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has delivered a verdict upon him: he is a criminal. He deserves 'fair treatment' no more than the trolls who have disrupted the Wikipedia deserve so-called 'fair treatment'. Those who violate community norms, such as Xiaobo (in the case of China) or many of the disruptive elements who create havoc on the project by their offensive comments and offsite attacks. The Chinese government imposed a blackout on news of the award: quite right. This is exactly what would happen on Wikipedia, by means of blocks in article space, talk pages and email access. More power to the community! Peter ___ 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] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea. As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom. As a voting member of ChapCom, I can say that we wouldn't leave the decision to Wikimedia Serbia. It's a complicated issue, just as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and New York City were. It deserves reasoned discussion and a rational decision based on the practical reality. I'm neither pledging support for nor opposing a Kosovar chapter—I'm simply stating, for the record, that we'll take any application on its own merits. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia movement roles project
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a Wikimedia Charter—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development. This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way. A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises: * Alice Wiegand * Arne Klempert * Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser) * Barry Newstead * Bence Damokos * Bishakha Datta * Galileo Vidoni * Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser) * Morgan Chan * Samuel Klein The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki. This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement. I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process. Best regards, Austin Hair [0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia movement roles project
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: thanks for sending around. Could you just give a link to where exactly on the wiki you would the discussion (very broad term :) ) like to take place? Which topics do you especially invite people to discuss /now/? Great questions, Lodewijk. The page I linked[0] is meant to be the central hub for the project, so I think at first the discussion page[1] is the best way to get engaged. As more work is done, and more pages are created, it should become more intuitive. I know that there's not a lot of information there, yet, but the truth is that we're just barely getting started. At this early stage, I think that the discussion is pretty much open. Any comments, criticism, or requests for clarification are welcome. Also the meeting notes mention The first deliverable, a formal proposal to the Board at its October meeting, was discussed. A first draft will be sent to the workgroup in the next few days. - is this draft going to be public as intended initially? (I hope so :) - would love to give some more input there) That proposal will be made available for comment, certainly. It's currently being drafted in committee, as it were, not because it's secret, but for practical reasons. The proposal is meant to formalize the work that's already been done and set goals for the next milestone. Since the ultimate goal is a universally accepted agreement, obviously the idea is that it won't be anything particularly objectionable. Austin [0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_working_group ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 July 2010 16:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 July 2010 16:21, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: But all of the above are nice dreams about the future. Is there any proven experience from the past that demonstrates why personal meetings between Wikimedians are not just fun for them, but actually beneficial to the Wikimedia community, the Internet, the Humanity? Can anyone here give me solid examples of successful projects that were born thanks to past Wikimanias? Most of the chapters. Are you sure? Don't chapters come out of local meetups more than Wikimanias? Three chapters pre-date the first Wikimania and one was founded a week after (so I don't think Wikimania can take credit for that). Can you give some examples of chapters you know were founded as a result of a Wikimania? I can imagine some people being inspired to form chapters after meeting people from other chapters, but I don't know any definite examples of it actually happening. Israel, to name just one. Not to call them out, but I remember sitting at the chapters meeting at Wikimania 2006 and hearing out some rather vocal arguments against a Wikimedia chapter in Israel. (Seriously, I think we were almost at fisticuffs.) We had extensive discussions during and after the conference, and clarified a lot of misunderstandings. A few months later, an exploratory committee was founded to investigate creating an Israeli organization, which resulted in what's now one of our most successful chapters. We get a few chapters a year out of Wikimania, not because locals can't meet with each other by themselves, but because a personal connection is made with other people involved with chapters and they see what it's all about. I know that I, personally, spend a few hours a day during Wikimania talking about nothing but chapters. To answer the original post, many projects have resulted from random talks at dinners during Wikimania, five-minute chats between sessions, and people just getting to know each other. I wish I could take the time to make a more complete list—I think it would be great if other people would weigh in on this thread, though. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they are to do. The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive results. It is similar as if I were to say to the English language community that they have to change their way because their community consensus is incompatible with WMF official board sanctioned policies. I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list. We can look at this issue and say stupid fundamentalists, but that's hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of outright Muslim-bashing. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you sought to limit by placing Jeffrey on moderation. I only actually forwarded one e-mail, which I found relevant given the prior slew of misaddressed e-mails—which found their way onto the list through no fault of mine. Had I known it would have resulted in additional tangents, rather than everyone simply chuckling and moving on, I would have kept it for my own amusement. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Jeffrey, I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable. I've placed you on moderation until further notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Austin, Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest. If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem. The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima 1. My name is André, not Austin 2. The first one to call for moderation was you 3. If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg Hm, I suspect he meant to send that to me. Good reply though, Andre—I'm happy to let you field list administrator e-mails any day. Very simply, Jeffrey, I'll take you off moderation when you've demonstrated that you can contribute to a topic without acting like a jerk. I've got to say that you're not doing a very good job of it, so far. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
Andre, I think you and I are doomed to be forever confused with each other. Austin -- Forwarded message -- From: Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adh...@gmail.com Dear Andre, I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate. Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote: Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior! Yes, and I think I said as much at the time. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Community, collaboration, and cognitive biases
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: 2) Make sure that every paid developer spends time dealing with the community. This can include giving support to end users, discussing things with volunteers, reviewing patches, etc. They should be doing this on paid time, and they should be discussing their personal opinions without consulting with anyone else (i.e., not summarizing official positions). Paid developers and volunteers have to get to know each other and have to be able to discuss MediaWiki together. I like the discussing their personal opinions without consulting with anyone else bit, and you bring up a very good point. I don't think (and I don't mean to imply that anyone else does) that anyone's conspiring to keep the community out, or saying leave this to the professionals, we know better. When you're hired onto a team, though, you're wary of saying anything that would cause strife or confusion. This isn't necessarily out of fear of retribution from your employer—it's simply conventional professional ethics, and it's usually not even a conscious thing. (It's also not limited to paid staff—the people we put on the Board specifically for their vocal opinions on things often fall into this, for understandable reasons.) This united front, however, results in the us vs. them mentality that we're all now lamenting. Volunteers are now giving feedback rather than making decisions, as Greg put very well, and we wind up with questionable UI decisions becoming surrogate arguments for the roles of community and staff. I don't think that there's a magic fix for this—it's simply a matter of culture, and making sure everyone involved understands it and can work effectively in it. We can point to the little things, but the systemic problem needs to be addressed. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 6/7/10, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: If you don't know the history of racial issues in the US, you might not realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In that cultural context, it is not something to be joked about. Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of other cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means execution by mob (I think if you told someone in Russia that lyniching is an offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said something silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world population are sensitive about lyncing. That post can only being seen as an example of agressive disrespect of other cultures by people who think happening to be born in the USA is an agressive disrespect of other cultures. Americans are people too! Birgitte SB This post can be seen as furthering an OT fork of this (otherwise productive) thread. Can everyone who wants to discuss the cultural sensitivities surrounding lynching please take it offlist? Thanks. This post can be seen as the list administrator asking everyone to be cool, don't go looking for things to be offended by, and try to keep what's already an obscenely long thread on-topic. Thanks! Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:30 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Howie Fung wrote: While we did not explicitly test for this during our usability studies (e.g., it wasn't included as a major design question), we did exercise judgement in identifying this as a problem, based partly on the applying the above design principle to the site, partly on the data. Said data indicated only that the interwiki links were used relatively infrequently. Apparently, there is absolutely no data suggesting that the full list's display posed a problem. Rather, this is a hunch based upon the application of a general design principle whose relevance has not been established. I was searching for a way to exactly that, David, and you said it perfectly. A usability principle may be universally accepted, but I can't think of a single one that can be applied to absolutely every case. What's happening now is a vocal minority disputing the application of one principle to one specific case, and with very little disagreement—we just seem to differ on matters of degree. And yes, I'll echo others when I question the original rationale and suggest that the interpretation of what very little data was collected is completely wrong, but I think I'll direct my focus toward a practical fix, rather than just calling the usability team stupid. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Austin Hair wrote: And yes, I'll echo others when I question the original rationale and suggest that the interpretation of what very little data was collected is completely wrong, but I think I'll direct my focus toward a practical fix, rather than just calling the usability team stupid. Your last sentence surprised me, as I haven't seen anyone opine that the usability team is stupid (and I certainly am not suggesting anything of the sort). Everyone makes mistakes, and we believe that one has been made in this instance. As for a practical fix, one actually was implemented (and quickly undone). Sorry if that wasn't clear—I didn't mean to indict you or anyone else for doing that; all I meant was that although I, personally, could easily focus on mistakes the usability team made, the way forward is to simply fix it to everyone's satisfaction. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: In short, there is little reason for a sophisticated user to complain about this for their own benefit. I think the people here are speaking up for the sake of the readers, and for the sake of preserving the best of the existing design principles used on the site. I know I am. I don't mean to detract from Greg's truly excellent e-mail by replying to just part of it, but I know that this is the case for me—I still use the Classic theme, restyled with my own CSS and Javascript, and all of the interwiki links are right where they were before. Vector doesn't affect me personally, but I see its impact on people around me all day. For the love of all that is virtuous, please at least read everything this man says. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com: When you are monolingual and are already on your native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to another language. What's more, when that language is the one with the largest Wikipedia, you're likely to find the most comprehensive article of any language. Pretty much every time I see a non-Anglophone Wikimedian look something up on Wikipedia, though, they look it up in their native language first, then look for a link to the same article on enwiki (where there's probably a bigger article by virtue of sheer size) or another language they speak (for regional topics; e.g. a Flemish speaker checking frwiki for information on a city in Belgium). Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Who cares if people click them a lot? The space they formally occupied is filled with nothing now. They were equally valuable as a marketing statement about the breadth and inclusiveness of our project as they were as a navigational tool. Concealing them behind the languages box also significantly reduces discoverability for the people who need it most: Someone who, through following links, ends up on a wikipedia which is not in their primary language. Before they needed to scroll down past a wall of difficult to read foreign language, now they need to do that and expand some foreign language box. I agree with every one of these points, and want to emphasize the last—a person may be able to recognize the word for his language in another random language, but he probably won't recognize the word for language itself. (I think I can recognize it in most European languages and maybe a handful of others, but that's still assuming I was actively looking for it in the first place.) Last night I was discussing this with Finne (henna), and she proposed that we might show a default list based on the user's most likely language(s), while still keeping the others collapsed by default. This could be done using the HTTP accept-language header—which would, at the very least, show you your native language. (And perhaps, if someone's feeling adventurous, augment that using a GeoIP system. There are lots of possibilities.) But I'm not volunteering to code it, and I'm not asking anyone else to. I'd be happy if we just returned to the previous, useful behavior. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Announcing new Chief Global DevelopmentOfficer and new Chief Community Officer
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: This entire thread is giving me an inferiority complex. Luckily, I claim Canada because my family is from there a couple generations back. I once dated a girl from Minnesota—that's like the same thing, right? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: However, I am missing why it was decided to decrease the size of the logo. It definitely looks more professional, but also somewhat less friendly to me. Maybe it is just me, maybe not - I just would like to understand the rationale first. And is there any chance that the middle horizontal line is made slightly less intense? Right now, the attention is drawn there (at least for me) instead of the open part at the top. It gives me a slight impression as if the bowl is about to burst. Which is of course a valid representation of the truth with all community uproar lately, but I don't think it should be our message :) It was jarring at first, and I'll grant that the initial shock (seriously, somehow this slipped under my radar entirely) accounts for most of my aversion, but I have to agree with Lodewijk. I couldn't quite quantify it, at first, but I think corporate vs. friendly is a good assessment—and the middle line is indeed rather distracting. Fundamentally, though, it just looks imbalanced to me. I don't mean for my personal aesthetic to in any way diminish the hard work of everyone involved in improving the logo—and in many respects, particularly in the use of a free font, it is an improvement—but... ew? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: I think you missed it because it wasn't really discussed before as part of the vector update... right? I admit I didn't read all the announcements, but was this discussed/announced earlier? That's the point I was trying not to be a jerk about—I'd like to think that I'm fairly attentive to this, particularly since the logos are a special concern of mine, but I don't remember any kind of public discussion or request for comments beforehand. Now that I look at the relevant wiki pages, it clearly wasn't any kind of secret, but I can't help but wonder if it was deliberately not made widely known. My response to Jay's message was to post links to the two image files in the hope that someone else would complain, I'm really honestly tired of being so negative. I laughed out loud at the crescendo of people trying not to be jerks, finally reaching a reverse cascade of as long as it's been said, yeah, I was just trying to be nice before. I am less confident about unbalanced. The old logo could also be said to be visually unbalanced and perhaps we're just used to it? I'm sure that's part of it—the old one really does look a bit crowded, looking at it objectively. What makes me say unbalanced is, very simply, the ratio of text to puzzle globe. The globe just looks too small. Oh well— at least we've got something to complain about and improve. We could always go back to talking about porn on Commons. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Jimmy, Commons, and the discussion on Foundation-l
Hi guys, As everyone can see, the list is a-flurry with discussion about Jimmy's recent actions on Commons. (And whatever other topics people want to spin the situation into.) I'm not commenting on the topic itself, but I would like to urge everyone to direct their comments to the appropriate discussions on (meta|commons|enwiki). There are a lot of posts in a lot of threads, and if this debate is going to be useful, it should take place on a medium better organized than a mailing list. I thank everyone for being remarkably civil to date, and for keeping the signal:noise ratio fairly high despite the large volume of messages. With this in mind, I'm hopeful that you can direct your energies in the most productive way possible. Thanks, Austin Hair List administration ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Mike, We're now some 40 messages into this thread. I went back and checked, and not a single poster supports your arguments. I appreciate that you've been polite and have made a good-faith effort to argue your case in a civil manner, but I think it's clear that this you're not winning this one—at least not here. I'm not saying that you're wrong—though, for the record, I think you are—but at this point you're just beating a dead horse. I have no problem with you pursuing this further, but I suggest that you consolidate your points on Meta and see if you can find others willing to engage in reasonable discussion without repeating the same arguments ad infinitum. Regards, Austin Hair List Administrator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se wrote: My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled. Thank you, David, for the very clear explanation of the issues at hand. I'm sure all of us who don't speak Swedish appreciate having the facts, rather than having to rely on the collective speculation/conjecture of a mailing list. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, posting on a mailinglist is all about respect for the other clients. And boosting your own client as superior and thus not needing to bother with etiquette seems a bit... ignorant or arrogant. I can understand people not being aware of the problem, but ignoring it? That's worse to me. I use gmail, and treat my recipents all equal; none of them get topposts, as it distrubs the way you read things. A: Because it ruins the way people read. Q: Why is topposting bad? I feel compelled to weigh in and admit that while there's no Official Rule[tm] against top-posting on Foundation-l, and I'm not going to ban you for it, DBAD[1] is very much a guiding principle here. Inconveniencing other people because you're lazy is just antisocial behavior. I've seen the just use [poster's particular e-mail solution] as justification for a lot of stuff, from minor things like top-posting to major things like replying to all 500 messages a month. I honestly don't know where else in life that people have found this attitude to be well-received, but I can tell you that it isn't here. I do use gmail, obviously, so top-posters don't create a great deal of personal angst for me. That hasn't always been the case, though, and a lot of people still use traditional e-mail clients. The polite thing to do, especially given that we're a supposedly savvier-than-average tech community, is to quote in context, only reproducing what's needed to understand your reply. I've seen a few replies to this thread which make it clear that the posters haven't actually read the document MZMcBride linked to. Seriously, just go read it. It's not that long. Everyone's life can be so much happier if we just spend a minute or two thoughtfully deleting unneeded text and putting new text where it makes logical sense. And even if I won't moderate you for top-posting, I will moderate you for being a dick. Thanks, Austin [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: How come, when I go to the edit history of the main page, I can't find a revision from 2001? Only 2002. Is it because of that software change? You hit the nail on the head. Revisions from the UseModWiki days are sketchy at best; many of them were converted, but it wasn't a 100% reliable process, and iirc much of the revision history simply wasn't kept (by design). I love your enthusiasm, Tyler, and I don't want to tread on that. You should absolutely keep learning about Wikimedia's history, because if you want to contribute, there's no such thing as too much background knowledge. I do, however, feel the need to point out that this isn't really the forum for the questions you've been asking over the past couple of weeks. I'm sure there are tons of people who'd be happy to help you out with these sorts of questions, and if you haven't already discovered it I'd like to point you to IRC[1], where there are lots of old-timers with a plethora of institutional knowledge. Most of your questions can be answered with a link to an article on Meta, or in the Wikipedia namespace on the English Wikipedia, and you're probably best off finding people who know where to direct you. Cheers, Austin Hair Foundation-l Administrator [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , Will iam Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?
MZMcBride, You raise a legitimate point, and I don't mean to silence discussion on the topic—I'm curious to know, myself—but please keep a civil tongue. As we've seen from the various replies, your approach is making for a hostile thread; this is not only unpleasant, but also extremely unproductive. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , Will iam Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: You're up. You're moderated. I gave you fair warning; I even acknowledged that you had a valid point to be made, if you just didn't act like a jerk about it. Even your new thread is plainly hostile, for reasons I don't claim to understand. Once you can construct a civil post, I'll let your mail through to the list. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevisions status (March 2010)
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Erik Möller -- You're the second-in-command at the Wikimedia Foundation and one of the people most directly responsible for Wikimedia's technology. FlaggedRevisions has been promised on the English Wikipedia for months and months and months. What's the hold-up? I just want to point out that, although I moderated MZMcBride for his behavior and still find this post teeming with anger, I'd personally like to see the issue addressed. I think it would be great if someone on the project could put the initial tone aside, turn the other cheek, and let everyone interested (and I know there are several) know what's going on. Austin, speaking only for himself ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] commercial use of wikipedia content
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Istvan Soos istvan.s...@gmail.com wrote: I'm evaluating our legal options around commercially using wikipedia content, if this is not the right forum, please let me know / forward the question. It might be that the method I describe is not legally possible, so if there is any similar situation that does or does not work, please let me know either. I'd like to play safe in this field and avoid potential issues. For the sake of example we would like to automatically convert the page content to a different text and different format (e.g. automatically create text extracts and compile it into a pdf document) and sell it as part of a subscription service or even better as a standalone product. We include all the attributions / links wherever possible, and mark that the source of the product is Wikipedia. What else are we required to do before the sell can happen? Is there any fee or percentage that shall go back to mediawiki foundation in such cases? Can we restrict the copy or re-distribution of such product? For the later, I suppose there is nothing we can do, however this seems to ruin the whole business model, doesn't it? Hi Istvan, Others have already replied with answers to your specific questions, but for a more detailed overview of Wikipedia's licensing terms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights and associated pages. (This is an English Wikipedia page, but the information generally applies to other languages as well.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Everything okay?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:18 PM, MZMcBride pub...@mzmcbride.com wrote: No posts in over half a day. Is everyone simply scared? The list is open for traffic, and there are no pending moderation requests. I think everyone's simply respecting the now more heavily-enforced atmosphere of only posting when you have something good to say. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Everything okay?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Internal-l is pretty active, with 5 posts in the same period, and there's been a few topics on wikien-l in the last few days which might have been posted here instead if they came up a week ago. I think we're seeing more of a choice of forum than respect for the moderators. If they're choosing a more appropriate forum, then all the better. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] List moderation
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote: I'm taking the liberty of putting foundation-l on temporary moderation. Seriously, guys -- take the who's a bigger jerk threads offlist. The regular list mods may reconfigure any way they like once they wake up. I woke up to this a couple of hours ago, and since then I've concluded that everyone could probably use a breather. Expect foundation-l to be closed to traffic for the next day or so. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to take another look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l -- there was some great initial feedback, but we've just seen where trying to discuss this topic on the list got us. (Big surprise: generating more list traffic on the subject of too much list traffic is counterproductive.) It wouldn't be fair for me to say more when nobody else has the ability to respond, so I'll leave it there, but hopefully I'll see some of you on the wiki. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Strategic planning task force application
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifegu...@gmail.com wrote: This is a textbook example of what does not belong on foundation-l. Please feel free to send private emails when you have a message for just one person, rather than sending it to approximately a thousand people. Mike, Did you get my message? Reply here if you did. All kidding aside, he's right. C'mon, guys. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, that's... pretty offensive, actually. If you are offended by statements of fact, that is your problem. I think it's fairly clear that I dispute the factualness of your statement. Last time I checked, being a non-profit (and a charity if possible) *was* a requirement to be a Wikimedia chapter. The WMF does have experience of running a charity. I don't know when it was that you checked, because this has never been a requirement. In countries where there's some analog to what Americans and Brits would call a non-profit, that's generally the desired form, but different countries have different legal systems—WMF Inc., for instance, is not a charity in the American sense of the word—and we do now have chapters which are neither. That's not even the point, however. WMF Inc. does not have experience running a non-profit in, say, Brunei. I couldn't tell you the exchange rate in Brunei, much less what it costs to organize an event there. It's preposterous to assume that we can step in and throw highly paid western consultants at a situation, with the poor, incompetent Bruneians bowing to our superior wisdom and experience. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Seems to me that the mailing list is working just fine, despite a few people who complain far too much about the volume of traffic, or about the occasional tendency to irrelevant comments. They need to exercise a little more patience and tolerance. The situation is a classic case of If it ain't broke don't fix it. Sorry, Ray, but I (obviously) disagree. The list has reached a sort of equilibrium, it's true—it could continue operating as it does now for the foreseeable future. It's not particularly uncivil or violent, but neither is it particularly useful for its intended purpose. For every one of the few people who complain, I'll bet money that there are at least ten who don't speak up on the list, because other people are championing the cause already; for every one of those there's probably another who unsubscribed or stopped paying attention because, well, it's just not worth it for them anymore. I have no doubt that many of the current active contributors are perfectly content with the status quo, and I understand that. Plenty of meaningful discussion takes place here, and I don't mean to demean that or any of its contributors in any way. I do, however, believe that we should have a forum that's more than just ten busybodies talking about WMF matters amongst themselves. A friend of mine, Charles Matthews, was for a time (I'm not sure if he still is) the single most prolific contributor to the English Wikipedia (behind Rambot, that is). He's a retired academic, and has the time to edit Wikipedia for several hours a day. This is a terrific thing for Wikipedia, since he's a smart guy and makes careful, intelligent edits which only enrich the project. A mailing list, however, is different. A mailing list is a conversation. Everyone's been in a conversation where a single person dominated, and no matter how smart or charismatic or entertaining he may be, dominating a conversation minimizes the chance for other people to contribute and makes it less useful. I've personally met some of the most prolific posters to Foundation-l, and not one I can think of is the type to dominate a conversation in person. On the contrary, most of them are fairly quiet in real life, and take the time to consider their points and formulate their responses. The difference is that, because of the nature of a mailing list, those who can afford a few hours per day can compose those well-thought-out responses to *every single thread on the list*. Others don't have that, or aren't willing to commit that, and the unfortunate end result is the same as the loudmouth you hate at dinner parties. I'm encouraged by how the discussion's progressed thus far, and I see promise in some of the proposals (such as moving to a different medium), but at the very minimum there seems to be consensus for limiting the number of posts per-user on a periodic basis. It's a simplistic answer to a complicated problem, but I think it's a good start—maybe we can get people contributing again if they're not so intimidated by the volume and cliquishness. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: While that is true, it is also important to remember that most people setting up a chapter have next to no experience of running a non-profit. They don't know what is and isn't appropriate to spend donations on, they don't necessarily know what needs to done and just because they know their culture in general doesn't mean they know how the charity sector works in their country. The Foundation could provide a lot of advice on those issues. While I don't doubt that the Portuguese Wikimedians are acting in good faith, trust requires two things - good faith and competence. They are almost certainly not competent since they haven't had an opportunity to develop that competence yet, so they should not be trusted to be making the right decisions. Wow, that's... pretty offensive, actually. It's true that random dude in random country may not be an expert on incorporating a chapter-like organization (not a charity, because that's not required, or even a non-profit), but neither is anyone employed by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., and neither is any member of the Chapters Committee. There are still 170+ potential Wikimedia chapters with zero persons experienced in doing the kind of thing we're doing. It's totally new ground, and to assume incompetence on anyone's part is simply bad faith. Now, there is room for better coordination and more oversight. It would, for instance, be nice if there were more coordination between the WMF Inc. staff and the committee facilitating chapter development. I'd like to see more discussion on the process, but there's no need to presume idiocy on the part of people who know their culture and legal system better than you and I do. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: Austin Hair wrote: My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that it risks killing what good we do have with the existing methods. I'm reading and posting to the list using nntp. foundation-l is distributed by gmane.org as the (pseudo) newsgroup news:gemane.org.wikimedia.foundation on the server news.gmane.org along with all the other Wikimedia mailing lists and it is by far the most comfortable way to read the list. Yes, but as gmane is simply a mail - news gateway, the fundamental operation of the list remains the same. The content management issues aren't affected. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: David Gerard wrote: wine-users - http://forum.winehq.org/ It started as a mailing list, then the forum was set up with a two-way gateway. The forum is where most of the posters actually post from, but so far it works ... surprisingly well! If you allow posting via email, then you lose the ability to properly authenticate those posts. If you allow receiving of the full content via email, then you lose the ability to postmoderate. Maybe it would be useful as a temporary migration measure, but it wouldn't solve any abuse problem until you removed those features. The main thing Wine found is that the forum promptly had 10x the traffic! There's a chance we would see that aspect of it. The mailing lists have a different readership to the on-wiki discussion pages, and that's because of the technical barrier, which works in both directions. Some people prefer the interoperable nature of mail and don't bother reading the wikis, and some people like web pages and find the mailing lists strange, and the subscription process onerous. Because I know that this mailing list is mainly populated with the former kind of person, I know that my desire for a web-only interface is wishful thinking. A properly advertised bidirectional gateway might go some distance towards healing the split in the community that we currently have. But then we would run the risk of losing the people who contribute via mail, on small screens or non-threading clients, who already complain that foundation-l traffic is getting too high. A lower barrier to entry, with a continuing lack of postmoderation, would only make the traffic higher. I'm not opposed to bidirectional gateways, but I do think we should move carefully. If the software is not up to scratch, we could lose what productive public discussion we have, and increase our reliance on private mailing lists. I agree with every one of Tim's points. There is definitely a disconnect between mailing list participants and wiki participants, and there would definitely be yet another disconnect if we tried to split foundation-l between a mailing list and a web forum. This is not a tightly knit group of 20 people who will migrate to whatever methodology we choose--a hybrid solution may work as a transition, but it's not going to be the same kind of community on the other side. (But then, that's really not what we want anyway.) My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that it risks killing what good we do have with the existing methods. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: I'd prefer that moderation of this list be used as a last resort to maintain civil discourse and not as a tool to impose an external view of the desired traffic volume and especially not in a way which could be construed as prohibiting criticism. Dealing with criticism, including occasional off-the-wall criticism and sometimes outright nutty criticism, is one of the costs of open and transparent governance. I make this post with over a year of consideration: had this kind of (in my view) heavy-handed moderation been effective at improving the discourse on this list, I would be left with little to say. I don't think anyone here can say that it has improved. As such, it's time to try something different. I agree, Greg. Moderation obviously doesn't solve the underlying problem; it's unevenly applied, and seldom fair to the parties involved. I try to avoid it, and limit moderation to cases of blatant incivility and/or ridiculousness. A fair bit of trolling is put up with, as long as there's a purpose—Anthony has this down to an art. In Buenos Aires I had multiple people ask (even practically beg) me to do something about foundation-l. One person said fucking moderate foundation-l, already!—to which I explained why I didn't think that moderating individuals was a solution, but had to admit that I didn't really have a better one. I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l for brainstorming of how to make this list a little bit less of a cesspool. Please feel free to ignore the initial thoughts I banged out as a starting point and refactor as you will. If there's consensus on a better model, I'll happily implement it; even if there isn't, at least getting more people's thoughts on the matter is a start. As for Greg Kohs, what finally got him moderated was the way he reacted to the ongoing thread once his hasty conclusions were proven, er, misguided. Being nasty and uncivil isn't the only way to find yourself moderated; few people are interested in having a thread be drawn out for another week after it's descended to the point of absurdity. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Austin, your page says nothing about the kinds of conversations you would like to see on foundation-l. You're right, it doesn't. I don't see it as my place to dictate, and I'm looking for most of the input to come from others. I do, however, hope we can all agree on a bare minimum of a civil forum for anyone interested to discuss Wikimedia Foundation issues. As a practical matter, improving the signal:blah ratio makes the forum more accessible—to community members, to trustees, to WMF Inc. staff (who, often new to the community, may feel intimidated jumping in). To me, this is the thing that has gone most wrong about this list. The Foundation just isn't here. They may be subscribed, and they may read, but they do not participate. They do not lead by example (with a few notable exceptions) by raising the level of discourse, and most all of Foundation business is conducted either in person, or in private e-mails. We feel like we have to shout in order to get their attention, and that not only do we not know what they are up to, but we have no say in it. That's what I'm hoping we'll improve. I have seen it said several times that this list has too much traffic. I think that's an overgeneralization - it has too much negative traffic. This list can handle as much productive traffic as the foundation cares to seed it with. Rather than having that conversation over private e-mail, consider whether it could benefit from the voices of a few community members. If nobody replies that's fine because by sending it the foundation has both increased the level of transparency in its thinking and operations and also let the community know that it takes what they say seriously. I agree, but also assert that this isn't going to happen as long as 95% of the traffic comes from 1% of subscribers and an extremely high percentage of the overall volume is spent disputing minor points of semantics and prose. Volume is a problem, and it may not be one we can solve, but maybe we can put more effort into the art of pith? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Gregory Kohsthekoh...@gmail.com wrote: When the Watergate story broke, it was felt to be a largely contained story. Leslie Stahl once commented, **CBS sent me. It was a measure of how unimportant CBS thought the story was in the beginning. As more information seeped out, it became clear that it was a story with much wider implications. Consider me a Leslie Stahl, circa 1972. Hi Greg, I'm sorry to tramp on your Pulitzer aspirations, but it seems that we've once again encountered a disconnect between your world and the one the rest of us live in. Far be it for me to stop you from exposing WMF Inc.'s insidious real estate plans, but this has gotten a little too crazy even for this list. I've placed you on indefinite moderation with the goal of improving the signal:crazy ratio. I'm flying home today after attending Wikimania 2009 and a few days of post-conference traveling, and will be out of contact for the next 36 hours or so. Ryan may be available this weekend to tend to the moderation queue, but I'm afraid that you might find some delay in posting for the next few days. Have a great weekend. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Email list archives
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: I hope you don't mind my raising this issue here - it's a technical issue affecting all wikimedia email lists so I thought this would be as good a place as any. wikitech-l might be more appropriate, but I think I can shed some light on your problem. The word wrapping is all over the shop and the formatting has all been stripped from the text. Some third party re-users do a better job, but it's still not all the way there: The Mail Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01470.html Google Mail: http://groups.google.com/group/wmf-wikimediauk-l/browse_thread/thread/a350852f8ad2ef63 The line spacing looks funny with the first and you still lose the text formatting with the second. Has anyone got any tips about how I can either format an email to begin with or view the email afterwards to solve this problem? I see that you're posting from gmail, so I'm guessing you compose mail in rich text mode—mailman then strips your message of all html, but doesn't re-format your text and add line breaks. (And really, should it?) Our pipermail archives don't do this either, although (as in the example you give above) others do by virtue of their CSS formatting. Switching to plain text when composing an e-mail to a Wikimedia mailing list is the best way to ensure that it's delivered as you wrote it. Mailman is actually doing you a favor by accommodating a message in an invalid format (html), it just doesn't go as far as you'd like. Secondly, has this technology been developed recently? Seems it needs a bit of investment, or alternatively, we need to move over to a better third party platform like, perhaps, Yahoo Groups. I'm not sure what technology you're talking about, but all of those involved here are rather old and very well standardized. RFC 1855 (Netiquette Guidelines), dating back to 1995, suggests that you limit your line length to 65 characters, and this has become the accepted standard. Most mail clients (gmail included) will wrap plaintext messages at 65 or 72 characters automatically, but obviously that's not needed (or wanted) for html. Hope that helps, Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Election vote strikes
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Philippe Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: [Greg] I'm interested in knowing the nature of the error (understanding is the key to avoidance in the future!) I'd also like to know if any users were denied the ability to vote who should have been permitted on account of this error? It was a coding error; it was corrected. This is important: NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCHISED BY THE ERROR. People were given suffrage who weren't entitled. Thanks, Greg—that was my follow-up question, but you beat me to it. I trust Philippe when he says that the error was on the side of enfranchising people, but I'd like to know the exact nature of the discrepancy. My understanding is that Tim Starling can shed some light on this. Tim? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] presentations and marketing @ events
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote: Do we have a modern press kit? I was looking for one the other day... Elian's is still up on meta, but not updated. That page should be tagged with a link to the current equivalent, or at least marked historical. Has anyone been working on this sort of effort more recently? I went looking for this, not long ago, and was surprised to find that the most recent general-purpose press kit was the one we made up for WM05. I have to say that I felt kind of silly handing out the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. annual report at Maker Faire. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, for the record, the last message I sent to that thread - itself quite obviously (from its content) intended to be my last message on that thread - was never posted. I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list. The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think likely to try to pursue the topic further, for a period of a week or so. Note again that moderation does not mean that you're prevented from posting to the list, only that we look at your posts before sending them on. Had you posted on another topic, your message would have been sent on within a few hours. Also for the record, I emailed Austin Hair twice for an explanation of the block, and his one terse reply indicates that he must be overworked and in need of some relief. I explained my actions in the original thread, but as a courtesy I also replied privately to the only e-mail I received from you reiterating that the thread was killed. I never received a second e-mail. I am generally terse if not succinct, but I don't know what about this suggests that I'm overworked. Note also that anytime someone is blocked/moderated from a public or open list, its a common-sense requirement that the list be given notification of the block/moderation, along with an explanation of why. This is standard practice on wikien-l, and I don't quite understand how or why foundation-l can or should do things any differently. Again, you were not blocked. The only message from you that I held from posting was the one to that thread, and that went for everyone, not just you. And again, I did post in that thread giving notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: I started a thread on Wikien-l last month suggesting we start a dispute resolution mailing list: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101428.html Responses were largely positive, and what little criticism the idea got (much of it from Thomas Dalton) was fairly easy to deal with. I filed bug report requesting the list's creation on June 27, which was assigned to C.Bass https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I also emailed C.Bass directly. I'm curious as to the status of this. Its been a month. I've gotten no response from C.Bass, and the bug report has been thus far untouched or ignored. I realize of course that people are very very busy, and that private emails, bug reports, and wikien-l discussions are not the appropriate avenues for discussing a new open email list. That's why I'm mentioning it here. As numerous people have already pointed out, this discussion has no place on Foundation-l—in fact, nearly every reply has said as much. No productive discussion on the topic has arisen in the 48 hours the thread's been active, and it's officially become a nuisance. Sorry, Steven—you'll have to find another forum for promoting your agenda. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: The foundation is not really like en.WP bumped up another level. We rarely get into policing such issues on this mailing list and that is nowhere near past tolerance levels, because of among other things features in this medium that are absent from the wikis. This is one of those rare occasions. Consider the thread killed. :) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Goodbye
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I would like to use this opportunity to say Goodbye to all of you, because my involvement with Wikimedia is now coming to an end. Let me just repeat my thanks for all the work you've done, and say that you'll be missed. It's been great working with you on ChapCom and on administering this list. Austin (No longer able to slack on monitoring f-l.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encarta is dead
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Maria Fanucchi marialado...@gmail.com wrote: RIP Encarta. For better or for worse, it was for many people, especially children, the first encyclopedia they ever encountered. It may eventually have sparked the interest of, and inspired, more than a few Wikipedians. The first encyclopedia I encountered was a supermarket set, published by Grolier I think, made available one volume per week in 1991. Every grocery trip, my mother would buy me the next volume, and in a box somewhere I still have the complete set—in fact, I used them to fact-check some of my earliest Wikipedia articles, back when we were still creating pages about the commonest of things, any new content was a positive contribution, and we weren't quite so strict about citing sources. A few years later, my parents bought a copy of one of the first editions of Encarta, distributed on a single CD-ROM. Multimedia was still a buzzword, and having audio sprinkled throughout—even video, for select topics—was an amazing thing. I grew up in an anti-Microsoft household, and we ran Encarta under IBM OS/2, but despite my prejudice, I couldn't help but find Encarta the greatest thing ever. I was disappointed when I had read every article in less than a week, but the proof of concept was there. (I don't think I need to wax nostalgic any further; obviously, long story short, I got here.) So, yes, I do have some nostalgia for Encarta. Its day is long gone, and this is certainly overdue, but I've never really harbored any ill will toward it. Let's hope some of their material can be released (I'm hoping specifically for some of the multimedia, such as snippets of music made with rare instruments, and the sound files of letters, numbers and various phrases said in many languages, by native speakers). I second that. Even now, when I think about Encarta, the first thing that comes to mind is a recording they had of a Baroque piece played on the harpsichord. (Not that that's rare, but they did do a great job deciding what pieces warranted multimedia presentation, and they had some good ones.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The new logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the classic logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version: I agree 100% that there should be a common brand to all Wiktionary projects. I also understand why the majority of them haven't adopted the proposed logo. I'm glad that this has been brought to Foundation-l, and wholeheartedly support a reconsideration of this decision with a broader audience—after all, a project's logo affects the overall Wikimedia brand identity, not just those closely involved with that project. For my money, by the way, I think we should start over. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein s...@laptop.org wrote: For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki. I would bet, though with lower odds, that this is the case for most users of WP as well, That's probably the best possible use for Simple, but I don't think it alone justifies Simple's existence. Cary writes: In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote. Cary Bass The simple-english snapshot has been replaced (in practice and in popularity) in the OLPC collection list by a larger snapshot from en, because of the difference in article quality and coverage. However, simple: snapshots have been requested recently by people interested in basic literacy (who weren't using WP at all before, but are coming around to the idea that simple articles can make good short readers). (@Pharos: I think French is a good idea, and there is definite interest in simple spanish articles.) If someone can find the first request for deletion of Simple, they'll find that I made my case against it then. I still think that encyclopedia articles should be in plain language, and that splitting efforts from enwiki (though not that big a deal, anymore) doesn't help anyone, particularly when you're dealing with an entirely undefined subset of English. And, again, what's the goal? English is horribly irregular and difficult to learn, but what problem is Simple actually solving? When Simple Spanish was proposed, I opposed it even more strongly. The eswiki community was already fractured (read: gone); and, to its credit, Spanish isn't that hard. It's a pretty regular language when it comes to grammar, and it shares a vocabulary with most Romance languages. There's not a whole lot you can do to simplify it. And two other ideas * this is a great thing to combine with wikikids efforts : kids learning to write articles tend to add simple stubs, write about topics of interest to other early eards, and may learn many things by trying to adhere to simplified encyclopedic style. Efforts targeted at kids should definitely use simpler language. Kids should also be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia articles in their native language, at whatever level they're comfortable with. Others can come by later and polish up their prose. ps - Lars - what the creators of these sublanguages have in mind / how they test their criteria is fascinating... some cross referencing with decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR. I'm actually very interested in this, academically, and hope we get more information. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: Austin Hair wrote: Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter. Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be subnational chapters - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'. The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area has 18.8 million people. This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands at 16.4 million. The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter. It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced. Population isn't the only factor, of course, or even the most important one. Wikimedia France operates in a very different way from its next-door neighbor, Wikimedia Germany. Wikimedia Serbia is very different from Wikimedia Italy, and in fact only recently became Wikimedia Serbia after incorporating as Wikimedia Serbia and Croatia. Both Taiwan and Hong Kong enjoy special relationships with the People's Republic of China, and our chapters there have specific concerns not entirely unlike those of our new American chapter. Every chapter is different, but until we make chapters representative bodies and hold elections where certain chapters receive one vote and others receive 0.375 of a vote, we shouldn't be singling anyone out for that distinction. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: For the sake of clarity, I'd like to ask that a mean is given to recognize that a sub-chapter is a sub-chapter rather than a chapter. If not in the name that we use within ourselves, at least on meta and internal pages. For now, I guess everyone from the house can guess that it is a subchapter, but when we have 50 chapters and 50 sub-chapters, it may not be so easy to deal with. I think there's some confusion between recognition of a sub-national chapter, or a chapter whose purview does not cover the entire nation-state in which they operate, and a sub-chapter, which is a misleading distinction that does not (at the moment) exist. Although there are some common-sense rules when it comes to dealing with chapters organized for a metropolitan area or a politically disputed territory, a chapter is a chapter. Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter. As chapters grow and evolve, so will WMF policy, but for the time being this is where it stands. Austin Hair Chairman pro tempore Wikimedia Chapters Committee ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
