Re: [Foundation-l] Spanish website blocking law implemented
In France we we're that far [me showing a little space between my fingers] to get a similar law in 2006 and 2009. The law passed but all the "site blocking" things were removed following some lobbying (in which WMFr did not take part but some of the members did on a personal level). All the plan for similar laws has been postponed due to the 2012 elections (presidential and parliement) but we know lobbyist are pushing forward to get it back on track. They actualy tried to had it through our online gambling law, but failed. Christophe On 5 January 2012 17:29, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 08:02:32PM +0100, emijrp wrote: >> http://gigaom.com/2012/01/04/how-spains-version-of-sopa-is-setting-the-web-on-fire/ >> >> 2012/1/4 Federico Leva (Nemo) >> >> > emijrp, 04/01/2012 18:59: >> > > With this law, a special team in the Ministry of Culture of Spain can >> > block >> > > any (for-profit or non-profit) website, from Spain or overseas, that >> > > _links_ to copyrighted works. Including Google, Wikipedia or whatever. >> > > Without a judge. >> > > > > More links off of slashdot: > > http://torrentfreak.com/us-threatened-to-blacklist-spain-for-not-implementing-site-blocking-law-120105/ > > > To make a long story short, the USA is already pushing for SOPA in other > countries. The game is afoot. I wonder if we've missed other countries that > might > implement similar legislation soon? > > In any case, it might be a good idea to check how and if the new spanish laws > (will) affect WMF, and what measures need to be taken to stay safe for now. > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning > > > -- > > ___ > 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] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
I think that is exactly Michael's point. ChapterS appoint two board members. So no single organisation expects the two members selected to push one chapter agenda. On the other, what Jimmy propose is that one organisation appoints a representative in one other organisation. Hence it would be expected for the representative to push its org agenda :) Envoye depuis mon Blackberry -Original Message- From: Ray Saintonge Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:51:46 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF On 09/02/11 1:02 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > Meanwhile, on the subject of mutual board appointments between chapters > and the foundation, I figured I'd chime in as I helped push the idea for > chapters to select foundation board members in the first place. For one > thing, there's a very different power dynamic between the chapters > collectively choosing a couple members of the foundation's board, and > the foundation solely choosing a member of an individual chapter's > board. The chapter-appointed seats cannot really be controlled outside > of the selection process itself, so those board members can act as > freely as their colleagues, and certainly no single chapter can force > them to act in a particular way. This is partly by design, since the > ultimate fiduciary obligations of those board members are still to the > foundation rather than a chapter, and is why we emphasized that they are > not necessarily being selected as "representatives" of the chapters. > This is anomalous. What is the benefit of chapter-appointed seats if those appointees cannot represent their constituency? In ordinary politics we also frequently see elected politicians who, when once elected.put the interests of their Party above the interests of their district. Representing the interests of the chapters need not be inconsistent with fiduciary obligations. It may be impossible for chapters collectively to force their representative to act in certain ways, and I agree that the influence of a single chapter is out of the question. Nevertheless, where the WMF Board has become unfriendly to chapters it is bound to influence the next round of elections. Ray ___ 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] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
Hi, sorry for top posting. A quick historical note, really early on some chapters had a WMF representative with a lot of power. We moved from that next to a lawyer recommandation as it created legal links between WMF and chapters hence increasing the legal risks for all the organizations and the safety/sustainability of the whole movement. If the issue is communication between WMF and chapters there used to be a position at the foundation dedicated to this very purpose, the chapter coordinator. Perhaps it is time to revive this position. Christophe Envoye depuis mon Blackberry -Original Message- From: Jimmy Wales Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:37:42 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority > for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are > controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think there is any > value to having a WMF appointee on your board; such a person would find > it difficult to function under circumstances of perpetual conflict of > interest. No other chapter has such a clause. I had never thought of this before, but now that it has been mentioned, I just wanted to disagree, quite respectfully because Ray is awesome of course, and say that I think it is a very interesting idea to have a WMF appointee on the boards of chapters. There should be very few cases where there is a "conflict of interest" since chapters and the Foundation are deeply tied together always (and that's a good thing). I think having a Foundation representative on the board of chapters does present some possibly insurmountable logistical issues (who will they be?) but I actually think such an arrangement might be incredibly valuable for improving communication and *decreasing* perceived conflicts of interest. --Jimbo ___ 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters
Hi, I've got an awkward feeling toward this whole thread. I'll try to explain why. For years, every single discussion has been WMF versus the chapters. few years ago it kinda made sense as we had so different issues and we were trying to codify the relationship between our organizations through agreements. But now, we've come to a point we cannot afford anymore to have this duality between WMF and Chapters. The movement raised around 30M$ last year, more and more chapters are raising more than 100 K$. At this point our needs are the same, we need that every single organizations fundraising to be able to manage and steward correctly the donations. 4 years ago, a chapter screwed up, it concerned, at top, few thousand donations. Now days, a chapter screws up it concerns ten of thousand of donations. And we can't afford that. At all. So, I guess we all agree that all organization raising money in our movement must : * be able to do useful "stuff" * possess the framework to handle thousand of donations * respect the accountability standards and criteria stated in the board letter So as Liam said (BTW Craig I'm a living cliché... so I'm more into wine but thanks :D), for me the letters is huge step forward. We now have kind of a ladder regarding fundraising. We now what's on bottom (non fundraising) and what's on top (chapters meeting all the needs and fundraising 100% of the money in their country). That's awesome. But, we now have an issue. As the movement grows, more and more organizations join us. And those organizations don't have the luck we (older wikimedia organizations) had... an organic learning curve. We grew with the projects basically. And so we were able to learn step by step to handle more and more donors and money. And in fact, we're still learning. But new chapters are cursed with the success of the project. If they dive into the 100% fundraising within their country they don't have this learning curve. Remember of the ladder, we know what's at the bottom, what's on top... now we have to figure the steps in the middle to artificially recreate the learning curve we had. I'm voluntarily not addressing some of the legitimate concerns regarding the coming fundraiser as I think that most of the concerns are due to either poor wording or lack of detailed information. Anyway, whatever your concerns are, we have to stop thinking us Vs. them. We're all in the same boat and have to start working all together. All the best, Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Infographic] Wikipedia and its history
Hey, This is a video infographic about Wikipedia and its history. Enjoy :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXD1TRGafQ0&feature=player_embedded# -- Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
Hi, Happy new year everyone :) I'm not gonna answer all the points raised in this threads as I don't have all the elements (I didn't enjoy the animated banner for example). But I'd like to comment two points : I/ The urgency to raise at the end of the fundraising. While I do agree it could be misleading to say "We need your money now" as we've already covered the operating costs, you have to keep in mind two facts : 1) the week before the end of the year is the week in the year people to give the more money due to tax-deductions. It is normal (for me at least) to remind them that this is the last days they could give. Most of the NGO I give to sent me an email late December. It is urgent, for me, to give otherwise I won't benefit of the tax deductions. 2) Not only Wikimedia Foundation is raising money. All the chapters are. We can debate whether chapters do support our missions or not, but the fact is, in the current state of the movement, they do. And they too have budget to reach and programs to do. We must keep in mind that our movement is much bigger and developed than he used to be. And I do agree with Erik on that, 2010 is key year for the movement as a whole. Chapters are now the sources of many partnerships and events that push the movement, and its the mission, forward. I won't make a list but you just have to look at the different partnerships, mostly in Europe, about freeing and digitizing content. And as they're growing and getting professionalized, they're doing more and more useful (imo) things. So, from my point of view, yes 2010 was a key year for the movement. II/ The distinction between Wikimedia and Wikipedia There are means of fundraising that are making sense to me (the urgent thing) but there are also some that doesn't make sens and are, in fact, undermining the work of dozens persons for month. In France, as everywhere else I'm sure, we've been fighting with the journalists so they would understand what Wikimedia Foundation is. It costs us a lot of time and money. For now 3 years we've been actively correcting most of the journalists making that very mistake. And it's paying off. Few days ago, I saw articles published saying "Wikimedia Foundation raised X millions $" on french news website, and during the fundraising many journalists explained that Wikipedia was raising money through Wikimedia Foundation, the organisation supporting Wikipedia. Yes there was a press release, but few month ago even with a press release, journalists were making the mistake... they don't anymore. They're still way to improve the awareness of what Wikimedia is, what our movement is doing etc. But I do agree that saying "Wikipedia ED" instead of "Wikimedia ED" is, on the long run, counter productive. Yes we might lose some donations in doing so, but we mislead readers and journalists. How can we justify to "harass" them to correct the Wikipedia/Wikimedia mistake when we do the very same thing during our fundraising. The only way we're changing this is in being stubborn (and I'm french so I know of stubbornness) and in keeping on correcting them. This is the only we can have the larger audience to understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I do understand why the fundraising team did so, but imo, this is not the way to go. It's easiest, more effective for this very fundraising, but we're not helping ourselves by doing so. I'd like to say few more words regarding this fundraising. It clearly is the most efficient we ever had. It also is the first one, since professionalization of the fundraising, volunteers were actually part of it and could get involved (there's way to improve the involvement of volunteers, but it's the way to go). It's also the first one with a strong will to have a rational / professional approach (though, again, there's way for improvement (A/B testing for one)). So, to balance this thread, I do think we, globally, are on the right path. There was mistakes made. No questions there. But hey we, wikimedians, should understand more than an anyone that it's through little steps and mistakes that we can improve fundraising. So I hope when the fundraising team will wrap-up they'll succeed in being critical with themselves (and that's not easy). That they'll read all of those, and the many to come, emails and take the best of it so next year they'll fix those mistakes... and make new ones :) All the best Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] xkcd's map of the internet
In Wikimedia trolls are memes. So we're at our rightful place :) Christophe --Message d'origine-- De: Svip Expéditeur: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org À: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Répondre à: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Objet: Re: [Foundation-l] xkcd's map of the internet Envoyé: 7 oct 2010 00:52 On 7 October 2010 00:44, Florence Devouard wrote: > Ok, maybe that's just me but I could not find us ! Where are we ? > (north west ? south east ? ) Between Troll Bay and Sea of Memes. Heh, that felt silly to say. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Envoye depuis mon Blackberry ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia France Wikimania Scholarships (was Re: Money, politics and corruption)
On 21 July 2010 10:00, Noein wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21/07/2010 01:57, Florence Devouard wrote: >> This decision was approved on the 24th of may and was advertised in >> various (french speaking) venues. The scholarship only proposed two >> different types of packages: 250 euros or 500 euros. >> There was no requirement of nationality or location, though we would >> probably have focused on French participants. A commission was receiving >> the scholarship requests and approving them. >> Scholars had two main obligations : >> - actually being at the conference :) >> - report after the conference >> >> >> In spite of sufficient time, not all scholarships were distributed, >> which is quite unfortunate. However, the number of French participants >> had never been as high in a Wikimania. > > Out of curiosity, would contacting the french-speaking registered users > of en. and fr. wikipedia have been a good advertisement strategy? We advertised it on the french Wikipedia of course, and on every french wikimedia project iirc. As long as on our blog and through social media. Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
The thread is interesting. What sv. did is, from my perspective, applying the same rules to Wikimedia logos that applies to all the other logos. Wich is just rational for me. Not that I agree, just it's rational. Wikipedia should be made of free contents, logos are not free, they remove the logos from the main namespace. That's fine for me. So to answer Lennart questions : Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? As far as I know, yes. Do any of you find this discussion strange? I don't. Why should we reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused. Wikimedia Foundation logos prevent that, they get removed. I do think it's a rational decision, even if I do not agree with it :). Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? Yep :D Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
2009/10/9 Gregory Kohs : > Nathan asks: > > + > > I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator > rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the > operations of the WMF. Care to explain? > > + > > Thank you for asking, Nathan. As always, I am eager to provide a prompt and > direct response to questions, though that is not standard practice in some > circles. > > I make charitable gifts each year that typically total between $3,000 and > $5,000. Some of my strict rules for charitable giving include (1) don't > ever give on the basis of only a telephone solicitation or an in-person > intercept, and (2) don't ever give without first looking up the organization > on both GuideStar and Charity Navigator. If another organization can be > found that serves a similar need, but is doing so more efficiently with its > dollars, then my donation goes to that organization, and other less > stringent donors are free to fling their money at a more inefficient > organization. > > For example, to help further the cause of truth and knowledge on the > Internet, this year I made a donation to ProCon.org: > > http://www.procon.org/aboutus.asp#Financial > > ...even though it was not yet listed in Charity Navigator, I could still > make a decision in part because I appreciated that 87% of their expenses > were spent on program services, as opposed to 66% at the Wikimedia > Foundation. > > Therefore, for me, GuideStar and Charity Navigator are important tools for > me to help decide where my charitable contributions will be directed in a > given year. > I wouldn't give money to an organization spending 54K$ in 2008 to pay 8 people. 562,5USD per month, those guys must be starving ! Or some of their salaries are considered as "programm"... But I wouldn't dare thinking you didn't looked at the financial report beside the nice images :) Anyway, soif we want to have the "stars" what's needed is just to put all the salaries and costs needed to run the servers and improve the software in programm. Problem solved :) -- Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
Hey, I've read most of the topic on my blackberry so might have missed some point but I'm surprised of the reactions. In my opinion there's only two questions "Is OM an organisation close to WMF and supporting other NPO sharing some of WMF goals ? " the answer is yes. So I don't see the problem in receiving a 3m$ donation from another NPO sharing some goals with the WMF. Second question, is " Does Matt Halprin brings interesting skills to the current board ?" and yes it does. So we have a really huge donation made by a friendly organisation and an interesting new board member and then we still have people moaning... Anyway, I, for one, am really happy with receiving 1/3 of last year budget in one donation, in-kind donations and a great new board member. All the best, Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission
2009/8/9 Peter Jacobi : > The issue is still unresolved. > > de:User:Mautpreller, who filed the original complaint, just affirmed > that there is still no answer. > > See > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission > > So, just doing nothing may be a way of telling de:User:Mautpreller > that his complaint is considered pointless, but this method of > (non-)communication seems out of place for complaints regarding such a > central topic as the privacy policy. > > > Regards, > Peter > > *:User:Pjacobi > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > I am taking care of it but, i'm sorry, I took the case up only two weeks ago. I have a job wich takes me a lot of time and german is not my native language. So any answers won't just pop up. I'll do as quick as I can to issue an answer. All the best, -- Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two editsa week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?
And what about the people reading all the mail of all the mailing list, they know Wikimedia damn, they too should be allowed to vote. And the people making donations, they're supporting the projects too, they should get a vote. Or not. I'm not fond of the idea. Contributors to the project elect part of the board. If you don't meet the criteria then you can't vote. You need a solid and strong criteria, I don't think the number of sent mails is one. Cheers, Christophe Envoye depuis mon Blackberry -Original Message- From: John Vandenberg Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:07:00 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided? On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions, > the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this > information is available on a user, the global user may be made known as a > voter. In my opinion you do not want to involve people when there is no > need. Automate what can be automated and through a link to a user it can be > automated. > > While I agree that this makes sense, I doubt very much that many people will > have a vote as a result of this and even more, I doubt people will cast > their vote because they can in this way. It is for this reason that it would be extra-ordinary. Most people who send email to foundation-l would meet the normal suffrage requirements. All I am saying is that _if_ we do agree that emails should be counted as edits, *I* can count them or publish stats that allow others to more easily count them. We have the technology. Do we have the need? Each year there are people who should have suffrage that do not. If I remember correctly, last year the techies were allowed to vote even if they didnt meet the edit criteria. We should learn from the previous elections, and have a panel that reviews extra-ordinary cases. It is worth the effort. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission
2009/7/27 geni : > 2009/7/26 effe iets anders : >> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the >> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here. >> Thanks. >> >> Lodewijk >> > > Doesn't appear to be. > > -- > geni > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > I'm working on it for a few days. By the way, this isn't the first time the Ombudsman Commission is "laggy". I would think that a mailing list isn't the best tool to work on cases. -- Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
