Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Travel Guide
One of the most useful articles on Wikitravel that I've found is an outline of different Bavarian beers, and which groups they are popular with in Bavaria. I refer back to it regularly. I can't say I see the "not educational" argument. Dan Rosenthal On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Consider the number of links that are possible from a travel experience to > an encyclopaedic experience .. !! Travelling has always been considered > educational. > Thanks, > Gerard > > On 9 April 2012 18:39, Pharos wrote: > > > I think I would consider it educational. Travel itself is an > > educational experience, and a fuller travel experience enabled by the > > sharing of Wikimedia-style free knowledge all the more so :) > > > > Thanks, > > Richard > > (User:Pharos) > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Patricio Molina > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Ziko van Dijk > > > wrote: > > >> I am not sure whether Wikitravel (or the content it provides) fit into > > the scope of Wikimedia. Is it really 'educational' content? > > > > > > Hum... I thought this project was adequate for Wikimedia, but now I'm > > > having some doubts. Could you please define 'educational content'? > > > What's the nature of projects like Wikinews? > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Patricio Molina > > > http://twitter.com/patriciomolina > > > > > > ___ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reminder: office hours this morning with WMF General Counsel
Thanks, I figured out the problem, or rather a workaround. Dan Rosenthal On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 09:23:14PM +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > > Trying to connect -- anyone else having trouble or is it just me? > It's you. :-) > > -- > > ___ > 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] Reminder: office hours this morning with WMF General Counsel
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Steven Walling wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is a reminder that in about 20 minutes Geoff Brigham, our General > Counsel, will be in #wikimedia-office to answer your questions. > > This is Geoff's first office hours, so please take a moment before we start > to read the introduction that he wrote: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Geoffbrigham/Strategy > > Thanks! > > Steven Walling > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Trying to connect -- anyone else having trouble or is it just me? Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Trust, consensus building and the image filter - was Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > -- > > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200 > > From: Tobias Oelgarte > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial > >Content > > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Message-ID: <4e9d.8010...@googlemail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte< > > > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY > > PROJECT?! > > >> > > >> > > > First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not > initially > > > promise results by project. Even now, I've never promised that. What > > I've > > > said is that we would attempt to do so. But it's not solely in the > WMF's > > > purview - the election had a team of folks in charge of it who came > from > > the > > > community and it's not the WMF's role to dictate to them how to do > their > > > job. > > > > > > I (finally) have the full results parsed in such a way as to make it * > > > potentially* possible to release them for discussion by project. > > However, > > > I'm still waiting for the committee to approve that release. I'll > > re-ping > > > on that, because, frankly, it's been a week or so. That will be my > next > > > email. :) > > > > > > pb > > > > > Don't get me wrong. But this should have been part of the results in the > > first place. The first calls for such results go back to times before > > the referendum even started. [1] That leaves an very bad impression, and > > so far the WMF did nothing to regain any trust. Instead you started to > > loose even more. [2] > > > > [1] > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/Archive1#Quantification_of_representation_of_the_world-wide_populace > > [2] > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_for_this_proposal.2C_WereSpielCheqrs > > > > nya~ > > > > > > > > Hi nya, > > At the point when you sent the link to > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_for_this_proposal.2C_WereSpielCheqrsthe > only people commenting in that section were myself and Sue Gardner. I > don't know how you interpreted that discussion as the Foundation losing > more > trust, but as the only non Foundation person commenting there I would like > to put it on record that neither Sue nor the foundation lost my trust in > that discussion, rather the reverse. To me building consensus means > discussing our differences and working to accommodate each others concerns, > I see Sue's acceptance that "a category-based solution is a non-starter" as > a major step from the Foundation towards those who opposed the previous > image filter proposal. As far as I'm concerned one gains trust by listening > to those you disagree with and accepting those of their arguments that you > find convincing. That doesn't mean that it will now be easy to get a > consensus based solution, but in my opinion it will be easier than it was > as > a major disagreement is resolved. > > WereSpielChequers > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I've got to agree with WereSpielChequers. Sue's post on the user talk page resolves a few important concerns, and provides some assurances that alternative models are in fact being considered. In fact, to me that is the most solid evidence that I've seen so far against the assertion that the filter has already been all but decided and that everything else is just formalities. (though granted, I haven't been actively checking all the threads/pages/discussion so maybe I missed something else to that effect). It's not 100% what I'd have liked to see, in that it implies that in the next two to three months if things aren't resolved the filter may just go ahead as originally planned anyway (again, correct me if I missed something on that). But it's an opening of a dialogue that the category based system has critical problems and some other solution is needed. I hope we can all assume good faith here and restore trust in each other because if we don't have it, we won't have a positive and fruitful dialogue on how to move forward -- and without one it COULD lead to bad decisions being made. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I'm taunting you", that's an indication it probably shouldn't be sent. Dan Rosenthal On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? wrote: > On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: > >> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: > >>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wrote: > >>> > >>>> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for > >>> > >>> Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was > >>> complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in > >>> empathy. > >>> > >> > >> Trolling much eh David? > >> > >> > >> But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that > >> searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat > >> different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual > images. > >> > > I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and > > unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, > > if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this > > kind of wording, or we are done. > > > > > Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking > would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad > your email provider added that option for you. > > Yet another censorship hipocrite. > > > > ___ > 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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Peter Coombe wrote: > Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it > would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently > it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that > all page contents are also being hidden with CSS (yes, you can bypass > that too, but it's probably beyond the skill of most readers). > > Pete / the wub But that wouldn't matter right? The goal is to send a message to people about it.wp's vulnerability to laws like this, not to actually prevent people from accessing. I'd venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of it.wp (or any project for that matter) readers wouldn't even know to disable javascript. I probably wouldn't have figured it out unless someone told me. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
This may have been answered by Kaldari already but... Wouldn't it have been a better solution to block ALL wikimedia projects in any language, if the user geolocates to Italy? It's my understanding that this law does not differentiate (so, the English wikipedia faces the same risks as Italian wikipedia so long as you are in Rome). This way, it.wp readers worldwide (except italy) could continue to browse/edit if they chose, but say an Albanian reading it.wp would not have the same issue. I don't even know if that is technically possible, or if that is what Kaldari was referring to above. Or maybe the community considered and rejected it. Just throwing it out there. Also, we have a Sicilian Wikipedia, don't we? Is that still up? What about the Latin Wikipedia? Dan Rosenthal On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Cristian Consonni wrote: > 2011/10/5 M. Williamson : > > Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. > > About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous > supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has > 215.000 > followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate. > > Cristian > > ___ > 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] Do I miss my bet?
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Without seeing the responses to the "referendum", I am betting you > have in the comments a huge amount of _committed_ "You are on crack; I > will never stand for this." comments, a wide field of wishy washies > giving conditionals, and an almost as wide field of supports on the > lines of "I wouldn't use it, nor make my children use it, but meh, if > somebody want's it..." and last and definitely least, a tiny hardcore > segment of "Won't anyone think of the children!" -- Do I lose my bet? > > -- > -- Am I reading that correctly to be a standard bell curve, slight shifted towards the left (i.e. more extreme no responses than extreme yes responses?) Because that doesn't match the bimodal nature of the answers to the scored questions, which implies to me that they were not well written, as others have suggested. Or are we just speculating on the comments -- I didn't know they were released yet. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Wikinews fork: updates
Sounds like a solid reason to fork and looks like the start of a promising project -- I hope you guys have the best of luck. Dan > To be clear, OpenGlobe was not created due to a dispute with the > Foundation. > The main reason for forking was the perceived hostility and rudeness among > Wikinews editors, > especially to newbies and outsiders, which makes it difficult to get > anything done > and drives off new recruits. Bureaucracy also > played a role: article standards have become so high that very few stories > make it to the front page; the project currently averages fewer > than two published pages a day and 75%+ of stories are deleted as old news > before they see > "daylight". The stories that are published generally go live only after a > lengthy delay and > some time after the event has taken place, making their usefulness > questionable. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > > > > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education? > > > > > No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy > keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are > "educational and high quality." > You're saying that a picture of a stripper with her legs wide open can in no way be educational and high quality? The undertone from this statement is that "It would be better and less offensive if her legs were closed" which to me highlights the censorship problem precisely. > > My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy > article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the > [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo > of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to > [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening > it. > I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has > exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles > at work, take that as you will. > This raises twin issues. First, it raises the presumption that you and your boss's workplace ought to be the model for how people around the world determine what they should or shouldn't see -- at home OR at work. Second, it echoes my first paragraph that it makes a judgment call about the appropriateness of a specific image based on the perceived "immoralness" or "embarassment" of that image. > "The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this > anti-sexualized > environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are > pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what > other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America. I > think > you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing > supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional > conservatives." The above paragraph is one massive "Citations Needed", but that aside, it misses the point. "Many are" carries with it that "some aren't." "Some don't" implies that "some do." In criticizing Milos for generalizing the opinions of one population, you yourself are doing the exact same thing. We don't have that data, and I'm sure if there WERE any it could be easily picked apart on methodological issues. The broader lesson is that attempting to generalize a view on morality to any populace is doomed to inaccuracy and failure. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
> > The point of > rational discussion that I find interesting is his demi-glace reduction in > the very last email he sent. I'm working with gmail, so quoting it is > annoying. > Throw in a side of potatos, and I'm officially hungry. Statistics is yummy! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Learning about cultural diversity from US diplomacy
> > > > > > We consider WL to be a reliable source? > > > >> [1] http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BELGRADE41.html > > > > (goes off to read) > > Leaked cables are primary sources, some of which pose problems because > they may contain non-public personal identifying information. Generally > the information in them becomes available for our purposes after they > have been analyzed by a peer-reviewed secondary source. > > Fred > > > Nevermind, thanks Fred. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Learning about cultural diversity from US diplomacy
Yeah whatever was the final ruling on that, as to whether wikileaks cables can be cited? Dan Rosenthal On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote: > > So, to understand the circumstances around building community or > > chapter in particular country, I strongly suggest reading relevant > > cables. > > <3 > Lots of work. > > > > > And, BTW, Wikipedia articles could be improved thanks to those cables. > > We consider WL to be a reliable source? > > > [1] http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BELGRADE41.html > > (goes off to read) > > ___ > 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
Ah, ok this is a recent thing then. Dan Rosenthal On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, CasteloBranco < michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, Dan > > It was announced in WMF July Report [1] (last point in the "Brazil > Catalyst" section). > > [1] > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_July_2011#Brazil_Catalyst > > Castelo > [[:m:User:Castelobranco]] > Wikimedia Brasil > > > Em 27/08/2011 16:20, Dan Rosenthal escreveu: > > Uh did I miss something? > > > > 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to > > stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of > > Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the > > search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a > > professional to manage it. > > > > Was this announced some place? > > > > Dan Rosenthal > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM, CasteloBranco< > > michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> For your information > >> > >> The Brazilian community is offering WMF a letter of agreement, which was > >> collaboratively written. > >> After the Brazilian participants shared their experience on what > >> happened in Haifa, the whole community had one week to discuss and edit > >> the content, which is now available on Meta.[1] > >> > >> Castelo > >> [[:m:User:Castelobranco]] > >> Wikimedia Brasil > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_letter_of_agreement_between_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Brazilian_volunteers > >> > >> > >> Proposed letter of agreement between Wikimedia Foundation and > >> Brazilian volunteers > >> > >> On August 5, 2011, during Wikimania 2011 > >> <http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brasil_no_Wikimania/2011>, on Haifa, > >> Israel, a meeting between Wikimedia Brasil and Wikimedia Foundation was > >> held. The meeting, which was also attended by representatives of > >> Wikimedia Portugal and Wikimedia Argentina, provided a discussion about > >> the ongoing Wikimedia Projects in Brazil and the interaction between the > >> future WMF office in the country and the local chapter. > >> > >> > >> The understanding of Brazilian members along the meeting was that: > >> > >> 1. Brazil is a strategic priority for Wikimedia Foundation. > >> 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to > >> stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of > >> Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the > >> search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a > >> professional to manage it. > >> 3. Wikimedia Foundation understands that the Brazilian community and, > >> thus, the chapter under formation still doesn't have the capacity to > >> be completely self-managed. > >> 4. Wikimedia Foundation aims to develop the existing programs in > >> Brazil, like "Campus Ambassadors", though it still doesn't have a > >> specific development program for Brazil. > >> 5. Wikimedia Foundation wants to conduct researches about the > lusophone > >> community. > >> 6. Wikimedia Foundation already has liaisons with Brazilian > >> organizations, like /"Positivo"/. > >> 7. The members of the Brazilian community want to colaborate with > >> Wikimedia Foundation. > >> 8. The members of the legal chapter under formation are afraid of > >> losing the legitimacy of the local community among society after the > >> establishment of the WMF office. Wikimedia Brasil has apprehension > >> of not having control over what was raised locally, and of the loss > >> of sources of revenue due to internal competition. > >> > >> > >> Based on this understanding, participant members of the Brazilian > >> community decided to: > >> > >> 1. Support the creation of Wikimedia Foundation office in Brazil > which, > >> as explained at the meeting, will have the goal of fostering the > >> realization of partnerships and events with the community and the > >> external audiences, provisionally and until the local chapter have > >> enough structure to develop such activities directly. > >> 2. Suggest that the office maintains goals
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
Uh did I miss something? 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a professional to manage it. Was this announced some place? Dan Rosenthal On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM, CasteloBranco < michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote: > For your information > > The Brazilian community is offering WMF a letter of agreement, which was > collaboratively written. > After the Brazilian participants shared their experience on what > happened in Haifa, the whole community had one week to discuss and edit > the content, which is now available on Meta.[1] > > Castelo > [[:m:User:Castelobranco]] > Wikimedia Brasil > > [1] > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_letter_of_agreement_between_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Brazilian_volunteers > > > Proposed letter of agreement between Wikimedia Foundation and > Brazilian volunteers > > On August 5, 2011, during Wikimania 2011 > <http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brasil_no_Wikimania/2011>, on Haifa, > Israel, a meeting between Wikimedia Brasil and Wikimedia Foundation was > held. The meeting, which was also attended by representatives of > Wikimedia Portugal and Wikimedia Argentina, provided a discussion about > the ongoing Wikimedia Projects in Brazil and the interaction between the > future WMF office in the country and the local chapter. > > > The understanding of Brazilian members along the meeting was that: > > 1. Brazil is a strategic priority for Wikimedia Foundation. > 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to >stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of >Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the >search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a >professional to manage it. > 3. Wikimedia Foundation understands that the Brazilian community and, >thus, the chapter under formation still doesn't have the capacity to >be completely self-managed. > 4. Wikimedia Foundation aims to develop the existing programs in >Brazil, like "Campus Ambassadors", though it still doesn't have a >specific development program for Brazil. > 5. Wikimedia Foundation wants to conduct researches about the lusophone >community. > 6. Wikimedia Foundation already has liaisons with Brazilian >organizations, like /"Positivo"/. > 7. The members of the Brazilian community want to colaborate with >Wikimedia Foundation. > 8. The members of the legal chapter under formation are afraid of >losing the legitimacy of the local community among society after the >establishment of the WMF office. Wikimedia Brasil has apprehension >of not having control over what was raised locally, and of the loss >of sources of revenue due to internal competition. > > > Based on this understanding, participant members of the Brazilian > community decided to: > > 1. Support the creation of Wikimedia Foundation office in Brazil which, >as explained at the meeting, will have the goal of fostering the >realization of partnerships and events with the community and the >external audiences, provisionally and until the local chapter have >enough structure to develop such activities directly. > 2. Suggest that the office maintains goals to work for the development >of the local community and not only fundraising or the realization >of business agreements. > 3. Recommend to Wikimedia Foundation that its activites in Brazil are >achieved with maximum transparency and envolvement of Wikimedia >Brasil, allowing the local volunteers to participate at the various >stages of ongoing projects and also in those that will be launched >at the country. > 4. Recommend to Wikimedia Foundation that its goals and existing plans >to Brazil are shared with Wikimedia Brasil. > 5. Recommend to Wikimedia Foundation to orientate its projects, >partnerships and possible proposals of interested sponsors to the >local chapter, giving some opportunity to Wikimedia Brasil. > 6. Propose the creation of a tatical planning for Brazil, based on >Wikimedia's strategic planning, with the participation of WMF office >and Wikimedia Brasil for the construction of a development program >to Brazil. > 7. Propose to Wikimedia Foundation to make room available in its WMF >office directorship, provided by statue, for a chosen Wikimedia >Brasil representative, consequently, chosen by the local community. >Or, that the Wikim
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement Roles: my suggestion of "Language Contact Persons"
The subject matter "chapters" thing sounds quite a bit like en.wp's Wikiprojects. Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter >> wrote: >>> >>> Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day? >>> As a en.wp newbie, I could only find the poll that the trial has been >>> discontinued, but nothing after that. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> Nope. >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&oldid=428618051#Closure >> > > So, the conclusion is that after months of hard work for getting this > working for the English Wikipedia it still failed. I guess I should be happy > that my opinion to implement it on nl: failed too then? But how come it does > work on de:? > > > -- IMHO it worked just fine, but there were too many restrictions on when it could be used. So actually…Mono is right, it was doomed to fail from the beginning, regardless of its merits. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Question: Guidelines with regard to topics suitable for Geonotices
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Fae wrote: >> It would be helpful if someone from the Foundation could >> confirm whether guidelines that might result from such discussions >> would be considered binding in the future for WMF and whether the >> geonotices service as supported by the Foundation might have >> restrictions on how it can be used or expectations for how it should >> be used and who ought to have final responsibility for the nature of >> the content of such geographically related notices. > > As far as I know, those watchlist geonotices on the English Wikipedia > are something run by the English Wikipedia community. It's not related > to CentralNotice or the Wikimedia Foundation, so they don't really > determine the guidelines for its use -- enwiki's community does. > > -- > Casey Brown > Cbrown1023 The sad thing about this is while the discussion on-wiki displays an appalling lack-of-good-faith and some disturbingly poor behavior from some admins who really ought to know better, unfortunately this list is really not the right venue for this sort of thing; even though I'd venture to say that the audience on this list are significantly more likely to be knowledgeable about the issues surrounding the geonotice and the job posting than those people on wiki. Frustrating. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Why can't you do both? Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for those who want the original to do their own verification of the translation. -Dan On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Wjhonson wrote: > > Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a > very long time." > > We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator > of sources. > That is the point of RS. > We don't publish first. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: M. Williamson > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge > > > And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say > am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original > esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long > ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes > n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation > y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in > panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources > vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a > ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit > rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone > isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few > ranslations on en.wp myself). > 011/7/29 Wjhonson >> > No that's not what it would mean. > It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English > language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it > using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating > publications, only quoting publications. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: David Gerard > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge > > > On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrote: >> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish > exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is > that > mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, > a > erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather > by > reputable author publishing just such a translation. > > his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable > n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea > no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously > reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. > You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you > ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you > re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion. > > d. > ___ > oundation-l mailing list > oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org > nsubscribe: 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 > > __ > oundation-l mailing list > oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org > nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office Actions
On 7/11/11, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > Dan, > > Legal-en goes to the legal queue. Legal@ goes to the legal department. > > pb > ___ > Philippe Beaudette > Head of Reader Relations > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > 415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations) > > phili...@wikimedia.org > > > Ah, somehow I forgot this (which is doubly stupid since I recall talking to Jon about it at some point last year!) Sorry about the confusion. -- Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office Actions
On 7/11/11, Jon Davis wrote: > Why don't you try emailing le...@wikimedia.org ? If it is legal related > they would seem to be a good start. > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:37, Huib Laurens wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Where can you request the Wikimedia Office to step in and remove a part of >> a >> article? >> >> >> I can't speak in more details, but in a series of wikipedia pages on 4 >> projects there is content that could harm the wikimedia foundation in a >> legal way. I tried to get it done with the local admins but they refuse, >> what will be the next step to get a opinion for a office action? >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> >> Huib Laurens >> WickedWay.nl >> >> Webhosting the wicked way. >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > -- > Jon > [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ > http://snowulf.com/ > http://ipv6wiki.net/ > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Legal@ goes to OTRS legal queue (it used to be a bad email alias, I think that's been fixed now and it properly goes to the legal queue), which has no authority for handling office actions. Realistically the fastest way to get an office action resolved is to email Philippe, and if there is an immediate and urgent (and unquestionable need) for some sort of deletion, contact an admin/steward/oversighter as exists on your particular wiki. -- Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office Actions
Local admins are not authorized to perform office actions anyway. A good place to start would be here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions which lists the three classes of people who can perform office actions. -Dan On 7/11/11, Huib Laurens wrote: > Hello, > > Where can you request the Wikimedia Office to step in and remove a part of a > article? > > > I can't speak in more details, but in a series of wikipedia pages on 4 > projects there is content that could harm the wikimedia foundation in a > legal way. I tried to get it done with the local admins but they refuse, > what will be the next step to get a opinion for a office action? > > > > -- > Kind regards, > > Huib Laurens > WickedWay.nl > > Webhosting the wicked way. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome Tilman Bayer to the Wikimedia Foundation
Awesome! Congrats HaeB! Dan Rosenthal On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:52 PM, aude wrote: > HaeB, > > Congratulations!!! You've done superb work with the signpost and we'll > (signpost folks) greatly miss you. > > Cheers, > Katie > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Jay Walsh wrote: > > > Dear Wikimedians, > > > > It's with great pleasure that I announce a longtime Wikipedian and > > accomplished Wikimedia project supporter, Tilman Bayer (User:HaeB) has > > agreed to join the Wikimedia Foundation in support of our movement > > communications activities. Pending approval of the U.S. immigration > > visa process, we intend to bring Tilman to San Francisco, full-time, > > as Manager, Movement Communications in the coming months. Tilman will > > augment Wikimedia's communications team (now at three!) and will > > report to me. > > > > Tilman will be known to many in the English Wikipedia community as > > editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, where over the past year > > (after picking up the reigns from another current WMF staffer, Sage > > Ross) he has led the publication’s dedicated crew of volunteers and > > increased the depth and breadth of stories about Wikipedia, our > > projects, and the movement as a whole. Tilman has also helped raise > > the overall visibility of Signpost beyond the English Wikipedia, > > building a significant social media presence (managing and bolstering > > its Identi.ca and Twitter feeds), and generally increasing the reach > > of the stories about Wikipedia to more editors and readers than ever. > > > > Tilman has been active in both the German and English WP communities > > since 2003 (he's been a checkuser on the German Wikipedia since 2006). > > He holds degrees in mathematics from the University of Cambridge and > > the University of Bonn. > > > > At the Wikimedia Foundation Tilman will be working with all WMF staff, > > and the community at large, to help us both build new movement > > communications systems, and work with tech and the community > > department to produce great specifications for user communication > > oriented projects. We’re particularly interested in improving > > feedback, discussion, and broadcast channels among and outside of the > > projects (including social media, variations on mailing lists etc). > > > > In short, we want to introduce more painless, relevant, and effective > > ways to increase the exchange of information within the community - > > including information you want to share with everyone, as well as the > > stuff from WMF. > > > > Tilman will be visible on the projects and IRC, and you will likely > > start to see him posting to the mailing lists, blogs, and on-wiki. > > He’s also currently in the process of working on succession for the > > editorial leadership with the Signpost. > > > > Please join me in welcoming Tilman! > > > > > > -- > > Jay Walsh > > Head of Communications > > WikimediaFoundation.org > > blog.wikimedia.org > > +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Nominating Committee
> > The general observation that we should be easier for everyone to edit > is reasonable, and that doing that and more outreach would help the > rest of the world contribute more effectively. (I did in fact see this in my previous email, but forgot to erase the line about you missing my point, as you obviously did respond to it. Sorry.) -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Nominating Committee
On Jun 25, 2011, at 6:46 PM, George Herbert wrote: > > "How do I manage the political factions on ANI or an Arbcom case on > english language Wikipedia to deal with this policy / behavior > problem" is something that very few *insiders* can do well... That's not the board's job though, and misses the point of my email. I'm saying that we should be aspiring to be in the position where the subject matter experts we look to on the board in fields of law, finance, privacy, etc. are ALREADY "insiders" simply by reason of using Wikimedia projects before we ever start recruiting for them -- and not just at the very low standard of "What is Wikipedia" but somewhere more in-depth than that. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Nominating Committee
On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: > Hi > > Having had the honor of being one of the first outside appointed board member > to the Wikimedia Board I do want to add that one of the main reasons for > having appointed members is to get an outsiders perspective. This is > generally considered good practice. Basically the idea behind this is that by > having as a diverse a board as possible with regards to knowledge, > perspective and background that board will be able to perform its > "governance" role better. > > Jan-Bart I think what Jan-Bart is saying here brings up an interesting point. Something that might have been lost in the other thread (Seats and Donations) was that part of the worry around Matt's appointment was due to him being an outsider -- it is important to remember that without some outside perspective we'll become too insular. But at the same time, shouldn't we also have the goal of eliminating the concept of "outsiders" to a top-10 website? Ignoring the age-gap with technology for the sake of simplicity, it would seem unusual for a board candidate similar to Matt to be unfamiliar with most non-technical aspects of Facebook, at least on a cursory level. However, tying in with our usability and newbie-friendly concerns, I would be very surprised to find those same candidates being familiar with contributing content on Wikipedia. Realistically speaking, I doubt many of them have over 1000 edits, participated significantly on meta, hold any advanced rights/flags, are familiar with our policies and guidelines in adequate detail, etc. Surely some will acquire that knowledge in the board vetting process, but my point is that for a website of our stature and positioning, the concept of having "outsiders" in the first place is itself a problem. In other words, the fact that our reader to editor ratio is contributing towards keeping a divide on the board between the "insiders" and the "outsiders". That's not to suggest we shouldn't have subject matter experts in a particular field (technical, operations, community, business/finance, legal, etc.) on the board, but from a cultural standpoint I'd rather that EVERYONE be an "insider" when it comes to "How does Wikimedia work?" -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have > improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the > connection much, if that's even what we would want to do. And for people > who were worrying about the implications, I think setting things up in > stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it look > better. The delay simply adds the possibility of new concerns, like > wondering what other unstated "conditions" had to be satisfied in the > intervening time for the other part of the "deal" to go through. And it > also encourages the idea that there must still be even more shoes to > drop. Basically, the timing issue would just become more raw material > for people inclined to engage in speculation. It could have been positive, actually. There will be some people who will be unconvinced entirely regardless of whatever the board says, and however long they delay. For them, the fact that it was an "outsider with money" taints the seat. Not really anything you can do about that. But it might have given some sort of separation between those simply speculating or worrying about the implications and perception issue vis-a-vis those who firmly hold the belief that the seat was bought no matter what you say. And I'm not sure I agree that it would have created any more speculation during the intervening period than there was from the immediate announcement. But then again, now I'm speculating too, so I think my intrusion into this thread has run its course. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as > problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good > board member. That seems contradictory to me. I'm not sure it is. I think what Joseph is saying is that Matt is a good board member in that he is a qualified candidate, he is obviously suitable to handle the pressures of the board, he brings knowledge, expertise, contacts etc. In terms of qualifications, he is a very good candidate. However based on the timing and the perception of quid pro quo, that does not equate to him being a problem-free board member, or even a good choice. In a grossly exaggerated example to show where I think the difference in the two aspects above lies, pretend it wasn't Matt, but it was say, Steve Jobs. Certainly, Steve's got a great many qualities that would serve the board well. But his appointment would create an instant perception that the board is no longer independent and is subject to the influences of outside entities, whether they be private, public, corporate, financial, whatever. When that is combined with the timing of the grant, it makes that perception that much stronger. (Again, not saying that is my belief, just trying to interpret what I've heard others say. I've not met Matt nor do I know much about him or Omidyar) To clarify, what would have happened if the WMF had not received a grant from Omidyar, but still put Matt on the board? Well, there would have been no outcry that the seat was bought, because no money = no purchase. Matt would still be a good board member in all the areas noted above (expertise, contacts, etc.) But in this case, a lack of a contemporaneous large grant means that Matt is much more visibly there on his own merits. Again, I don't think anyone is saying he lacks those merits anyway, just that they get lost among the clutter of alternative "explanations" for why he was appointed. The lesson to be learned from this, I guess, is that even if you have a good process and a good outcome, sometimes the community doesn't necessarily see it that way, and a greater deal of proactive engagement could be helpful in those cases. Less abstractly, I remember there being some talk on this list about the seat and donations at the time Matt's appointment was first announced, but what I don't remember (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) is the WMF publicly addressing community concerns about the grant timing beyond "no, the seat wasn't bought." As a result, it's now June 2011 and the topic is reoccurring. Broadly speaking this is something that we need to work on. BLPs, harassment of editors, both things that the WMF itself is now beginning to fully engage on, but the community has been discussing for years looking for some sort of acknowledgement. Of course, if I'm misinterpreting what Seddon is saying, you can disregard all of the above. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:50 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin > wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> >>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote: >>> >>>> Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at >>>> Wikiversity. >>> >>> How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not >>> require the submission of identifying information? >> >> >> By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that >> Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to >> participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I >> was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. >> >> (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission >> of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's >> not the case here.) > > Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but > taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language > Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all > the same reasons that real life identity theft is bad. > > From: > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:USERNAME#Real_names > > "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable > living person unless it is your real name." > And arguably the action falls under disruptive editing practices, which are a blockable offense anyway (wasting administrator time with a bad-faith attempt to disrupt the project). Except, if you don't know that this is happening, what do you do then? It seems perfectly reasonable to block under existing policies when the offender is being obvious and the offense is clear, but what happens when some random anon puts up their own personal information on their userpage. Are we going to run an inquisition on them to see if they are who they say they are (I'm not referring to cases where it is obvious or a cursory investigation would reveal it)? At what point does the threat that a person might use information gathered from an off-wiki act of identity theft precipitate on-wiki action? We talk about driving off new editors with scary sockpuppet investigations and warning templates and such -- this line of discussion to me seems like it may well have a chilling effect on editors who want to identify themselves in good faith, for whatever reason. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the actual history to know if I'm being helpful with this line of inquiry so if I'm totally off base, please let me know (actually it was interesting to read the history from David and John's posts, for what that's worth.) -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable information, not as a distribution method. -Dan On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote: >> >>> Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at >>> Wikiversity. >> >> How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not >> require the submission of identifying information? > > > By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that > Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to > participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I > was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. > > (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission > of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's > not the case here.) > > Kirill > ___ > 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] Global ban - poetlister?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote: > Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at > Wikiversity. How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not require the submission of identifying information? -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Farsi wikipedia now has 150000 articles
On May 22, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Mardetanha wrote: > Dear all fellow wikipedian and wikimedians > I am so pleased to announce some minutes ago Farsi wikipedia has reached > 15 articles. > > > Mardetanha Congratulations! -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?
I feel like this image from the same author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png might be crossing the lines. Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being "censored", I'd say the issue is less "art" and more "lets see who we can shock and/or piss off." -Dan On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > Ah... this is one of those perennial issues that is unlikely to be solved > this time around. > > I think casting this a gender issue is incorrect; certainly amongst my group > of friends those who would not appreciate the image are fairly evenly split > between male/female. I think most rational adults can tell the difference > between porn (or gratuitous sexuality) and nudity. > > The other problem is not recognizing this as art, in the same way as > artistic nudes. Given the ease of making images nowadays there is an awful > lot of them out there - and this one certainly runs a fine line. It's an > area that is always going to be subjective. > > Commons is, surely, about media. Is this good media? I am no expert of this > genre, but it seems reasonably decent. At the end of the day, NOTCENSORED > does come into play - it is a legitimate genre, where the image is judged to > be of a high quality. It just happens that it offends the sensibilities of, > by comparison to other issues, a largish portion of the editing community. > > There is an irony in there somewhere. > > Tom > > On 16 May 2011 21:10, Robert Rohde wrote: > >> 2011/5/16 David Richfield : >>> How on earth can this become the POTD on any Wikipedia? It's >>> tolerably well executed art, but utterly non-notable. >> >> The Commons Picture of the Day process allows photos / illustrations >> of a very high technical quality to be promoted even if they have no >> claim to notability at all. In general, "notability" has very little >> to do with Commons at any level. >> >> -Robert Rohde >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Plea for candidates: WMF Movement Communications Manager
It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification: "Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. " The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the "native speaker" quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something), then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points. On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Sarah wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal >>> theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be >>> an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a >>> global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and >>> skill in communicating globally. >>> >> Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad >> in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native >> language is not Urdu." > > It looks like the problem here is that there is confusion on what is > meant by "as a native speaker". > > Some people are taking it to mean "We'd like it to be your first > language", in which case Sarah is quite correct that it specifically > excludes people whose first language is English from the "ideal" > requirements. Others are taking it to mean "We'd like your ability to > be as good as if it were your first language", in which case Berìa is > correct that it is pragmatic, reasonable, and legitimately useful for > the job. > > I'd like to invoke the principle of charity and think that Wikimedia > means the latter, but I can see why somebody might be interpreting it > as the former, since the latter reads a bit more into the words. > > -- > Andrew Garrett > http://werdn.us/ > > ___ > 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] In reply to Virgilio's comments
On Apr 10, 2011, at 6:28 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> 4 What it would be like to grant amnesty to all that are currently
> banned and/or blocked.
>
> It is just fine, providing we continue to only grant amnesty to those
> who accept the terms of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_offer
> A blanket amnesty on other terms would only make sense if we wanted to
> compete with Encyclopaedia dramatica.
I think it would even be fine without such an offer. Unless we're talking about
an amnesty followed by an inability to re-block those who abuse it, I think
this would only be a irritation in the short term, especially if it's done in
an opt-in rather than opt-out manner (i.e., you must put the {{unblock}}
template on your page and ask for the amnesty in order to be
unblocked/unbanned).
-Dan
___
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
Andrew was clearly referring to me, lets leave him out of this please. -Dan On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:32 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado 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. > > Andrew Garrett wrote, Sun Apr 3 10:13:26 UTC 2011, "Your messages are > deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to boot." it is > unclear what messages he is referring to, but these are not > acceptable terms to classify anybody's messages, unless it is > acceptable that others classify Andrew Garrett's or anybody else's > messages as "deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to > boot." and therefore asks him or them to "Cut it out, please." "What > is good for the goose is good for the gander." > > After engaging in a "friendly and polite exchange" with Dan > Rosenthal, he saw fit to send me an e-mail, Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:26, > concerning "[Foundation-l] Wiki-revolution," using language > unbecoming to a gentleman, that I'll not repeat. This kind of > behavior cannot and should not be tolerated from members of this > list. Should everybody start sending unspeakable messages to other > members of the list? I do have experience of exchanging off list > messages with other members, but those were used for clarification, > to reach a mutual understanding and establish new bridges and avenues > of communication. They were used to improve relations with other > members and, as a result, improve the peaceful and cordial exchanges > that should take place on this list, despite any disagreements and > differences of opinion. There can never be any disagreements or > differences of opinion as far as the level of education and manners > used on this list, and towards members of this list both on and off > list. This is no army barracks, farm stables, or brawl among > drunkards on the town fairgrounds. > > As Dan Rosenthal might wish to present evidence that no harm was > intended or done, by making public his message, I authorize that he > so does. I have no trouble in reproducing Dan Rosenthal's message on > this list, provided he grants me, here, in public, on this list, > authorization to do it. > > I believe that Dan Rosenthal's action called for more severe > sanctions, but I have many reservations concerning all sorts of so > called severe sanctions on this list and Wikimedia projects in > general. We all know how easily they can be circunvented by the less > scrupulous. Therefore, as in the case of Andrew Garrett, my request > is that their posts to be moderated from now on. That should be > sufficient to prevent Dan Rosenthal from coughing again on this list > and hopefully at least make him hesitate before sending unworthy > messages off list. > > Sincerely, > > Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado) > > > ___ > 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] Wiki-revolution
Virgilio: Your userpage claims you speak American English at an en-4 "near-native level". Want to try again? -Dan On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > When I misspelled the word intellectual I wasn't referring to certain > people whose language skills revolve around being spell checkers. It > is always a thrill to trample on somebody else's language, mostly > when they can't utter a single word on any other except their own > language, much less address you in your own language. Misspelling or > mispronouncing any other language except my own? What, me worry? > > > At 06:14 03-04-2011, you wrote: > >> On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: >> >>> intelectual >> >> >> *cough* >> >> -Dan > > > ___ > 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] Wiki-revolution
I think you're missing the humor in the "choice" of word misspelled. If you're going to criticize Fred's intelligence, you should take care to ensure that you spell intellectual correctly. Otherwise, it puts quite a damper on your argument. If I was getting heart surgery, I would want my surgeon to know how to spell the body part he is working on. Is it too much to ask that someone making a statement about someone else's intellectual level actually be capable of "intellectual"? Finally, considering I don't have the slightest clue what your primary language is and you seem to use complex English words quite well, your defensiveness about it being a second language is rather perplexing. That being said, I have no interest in taking this further off topic, I just thought the error was funny. Apparently, sarcasm is a one-way street on this list. -Dan On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > When I misspelled the word intellectual I wasn't referring to certain > people whose language skills revolve around being spell checkers. It > is always a thrill to trample on somebody else's language, mostly > when they can't utter a single word on any other except their own > language, much less address you in your own language. Misspelling or > mispronouncing any other language except my own? What, me worry? > > > At 06:14 03-04-2011, you wrote: > >> On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: >> >>> intelectual >> >> >> *cough* >> >> -Dan > > > ___ > 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] Wiki-revolution
On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > intelectual *cough* -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Possible tsunami for Japan
NHK is apparently reporting 9 ft. tsunami heading for Shinchicho, Fukushima Prefecture, from what I'm reading in the stewards channel. If you are in the potential target area, please be safe. -Dan (crossposting to multiple lists) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 8 March 2011 13:24, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote: >>> While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing) >>> community, the people within the community often feel that the very small >>> staff of the past was more productive, more agile, less bloated, and overall >>> more efficient than the larger staff of today. >> >> I think this is not true as a matter of content, and certainly not true >> as a matter of how people view the Foundation. Perhaps you don't >> remember how completely unresponsive and broken the Foundation was in >> the old days. >> >> The largest staff today is: more productive, more agile, and overall >> more efficient than the larger staff of today. >> >> I remember the bad old days, I was there. Woefully understaffed, we >> were unable to respond to just about any and all requests from chapters, >> potential partners, etc. > > The WMF is certainly able to do (and does) a great deal more useful > stuff now. It probably is less efficient, though. When Brion was the > only staff member, he probably spent 99% of his time on programme > work. Now there are quite a few staff members that don't do any > programme work and just support the rest of the office. That isn't > bloat, though, it's an inevitable part of growth. If the WMF tried to > do everything it is currently doing without those support staff, it > would be far *less* efficient. > That's how it should have worked in theory (efficiency), but my experience was that small size of the office back in the St. Pete days didn't actually lend it any favors. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
I sincerely doubt that poverty is anyones attraction to wikipedia. -- Dan Rosenthal Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity. On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote: >> church.of.emacs.ml wrote: >>> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise >>> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from >>> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-) >> >> There's a fairly easy solution: raise less money. It costs about $2 >> million/year to keep the Wikimedia wikis running. That gets raised fairly >> quickly (it took about five days for the 2010 fundraiser) without many >> annoying banners. :-) > > I was just thinking the same when I saw this post. Can someone explain > why we need to raise so much money each year, then hire people to > raise even more, which means we need more money to pay them? > > The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was > that it was run on a shoestring by a bunch of volunteers, for the > benefit of other people. > > Sarah > > ___ > 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 "Storyteller" job opening
Did autocomplete change your sentence Fred? I don't follow and it doesn't seem to relate to MZMcBride's new question about naming. -- Dan Rosenthal Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity. On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM, "Fred Bauder" wrote: >> Is there something wrong with it >> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only >> one >> confused about this. >> >> MZMcBride > > There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first > time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda. > > Fred > > > ___ > 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] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:49 AM, Pronoein wrote: > Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit : >> Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out >> that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say "assume good >> faith"? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street. > > Not at all. I'm saying it is best to try to understand instead of rejecting. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Pronoein wrote: > Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit : >> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; >> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including >> ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l >> (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a >> handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's >> still the "main" public list we have.) >> >> You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the >> issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to >> become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain >> posters) fault. > > In summary, you detect a trend of criticism towards the staff's actions > from many independent lists and you conclude that it is unfair, > unfounded or caused by some foreign cause. It is much simpler to > hypothetize that the staff's actions are the common cause. Just assume > good faith when you're beign told that the opacity is the cause. > > Thinking about why people are asking for transparency would help solve > the issue much better than denying the legitimity of their concerns, > whether by saying that their pretenses are false or invalid. > > Democracy is the best way to understand each other. Some want it because > they believe in equality as a end. Some don't care about it and just > want to keep their job or mission going, and they're ready to accept it > as the rules of the game. > > If no common ground is found, then mistrust arise. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say "assume good faith"? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:29 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; >> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including >> ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although >> I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF >> employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" >> public list we have.) >> >> You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue >> here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become >> commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) >> fault. > > I'm going to assume this was just phrased poorly because you seem to be > saying that "criticism is happening in a lot of places, so clearly there's > just too much criticism." That seems rather backward and wrong. If there's > more and more criticism in various forums, I'd venture to guess that there > are actual underlying problems, not just people who are being too critical. > It's possible that it's a mix of both, but the fact that you're seeing more > and more people (some of whom I imagine you respect and trust) make > complaints or criticisms indicates to me that there is likely a fundamental > issue with the actors' actions. > > If criticism is unduly harsh in your opinion, you should say so to the > people doing the criticizing as it happens (privately or publicly). Nobody's > perfect; sometimes people are too harsh. And sometimes text is just mis-read > or mis-phrased. That's the nature of text-based communication, or any > communication, really. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Yeah, I realize (after the painkillers have worn off) that I actually meant to say "hostility and suspicion" more than I meant to say criticism. Criticism should always be welcome. I'm talking about the unfounded stuff. I agree with your conclusions about what the increasing amounts would indicate, but in my experience it tends to be based around completely different people each time, implying to me that the anger is more generalized and lashing out at whoever is the target of the moment. I guess this is my blanket statement towards all the people lately whose criticisms I think have been a bit too harsh. I wonder if anyone else has come to similar conclusions or if I'm just wrong. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: >>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, >>> to escape the unfounded criticism. >> >> This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of >> weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions >> on >> this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should >> be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that >> end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to >> default to "wrong" until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of >> employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore. > > Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, > though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia > employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required > to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in > general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so > Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing > more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that > people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and > the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make. > > A few Wikimedia employees are part of the "Community Department," and there > should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, > though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I > can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly > harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a > responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the > issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki) > > It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are "wrong," that's a bad > and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an > organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. > Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately > among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even > notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the > resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: > At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, > to escape the unfounded criticism. This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to default to "wrong" until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] IRC general meetings
No matter what time you're dealing with you're going to have bad timing somewhere. Move it forward a few hours, and you lose Europe. Move it backwards and you lose the WMF and west coast US (and not likely to get much east coast involvement that early). -Dan On Feb 6, 2011, at 11:12 PM, KIZU Naoko wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:21 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> Reminder that an open community meeting is proposed for this Saturday, >> Feb. 5. on IRC: freednode#wikimedia >> >> Please add your agenda items! >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings >> >> based on feedback I'd like to move the time down to 1800-1900 UTC >> (that's 10 am PST). > > And it's 3am JST ... the open community is intended to or doesn't mind > kicking out Asia and Oceania? > I'm really worried to the increase of meetings in these hours and on > contrary to abolishment of time rotated series of meetings. >> >> Let me know if you can help moderate. >> Looking forward to it, >> Phoebe >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Back in September we had an open community IRC meeting, where we >>> introduced the new Trustees and talked about various issues. It was >>> pretty successful and we discussed afterwards making such "community >>> meetings" a regular event. >>> >>> I'd like to revive this idea :) I've made a proposal for having >>> community meetings on the first Saturday of the month: >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings >>> >>> Which would make the first upcoming meeting on February 5. >>> >>> I proposed 17:00UTC as a time, but please discuss good days/times on >>> the talk page if you are interested in attending; we'll need to rotate >>> times. >>> >>> I envision this as not really a Q&A session like the staff office >>> hours, but rather as a chance for community members to get together >>> and talk about important issues in a structured way. To that end, >>> please add your proposed agenda items to the wiki. It would also be >>> great to have some volunteers to take notes/moderate. >>> >>> Of course this is just an experiment -- but there seemed to be a lot >>> of interest in having such meetings, so I'd like to try it out. Let me >>> know what you think and if you'd be interested. >>> >>> best, >>> Phoebe >>> >>> -- >>> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers >>> gmail.com * >>> >> >> ___ >> 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] inquiry about paid prject support by WMF
Yeah, I was confused about the page as well, so I got in touch with the research team. They're going to build out their page a bit better first, it'll explain more what they mean. -Dan On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:58 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > All mention that this is supported by the have been removed and > Swatjester is looking into this. > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: >> I just found >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior >> and it repeats a lot it's supported by the Foundation >> >> where can I learn more about it, since it says participants will earn money? >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
Banners have been turned off for logged-in users on en.wp (and maybe other projects?) for quite some time now, since well before Christmas holiday break for most people. -Dan On Dec 31, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mono mium wrote: > >> Awesome! >> >> How about we add popups? >> >> Seriously, if you're going to do this, just add AdSense...it's a heck of a >> lot prettier. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:10 AM, K. Peachey >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Domas Mituzas >>> wrote: now that we have blinking banners, Domas >>> Oh! Oh! can we have marquees as well... and those flashy "under >>> construction" gifs?? >>> -Peachey >> >> > Firstly, this is probably just an experiment to see if it draws more > donations. If it doesn't, they probably won't use the tactic in the future. > > Second, if WMF doesn't meet the fundraising goal they will have to cut > something from the budget. If it's so very important to you that they not > try advertising techniques that are mildly annoying to some users you should > start by suggesting projects that won't get funded or people that won't get > hired or servers that won't get bought, etc. > > Third, adverts are turned off for non-logged in users. Try logging in. > ___ > 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] Re： [Wikizh-l] About WM priv ate policy
Addressing the other half of this issue, "is creating a page = to editing", I'd argue that page creation is a subset of editing with a fundamental difference. Creating a page has different requirements (such as meeting mandatory inclusion requirements, like notability, or local project rules) that a simple copyedit or typo fix doesn't have. Furthermore, vandalism with page creation used to be much more annoying to deal with (although that's improved over time with certain tools and plugins). So yes, I think in theory a page creation does "equal" an edit, but having said that there are real-world reasons a community might wish to treat the two actions separate. It probably also doesn't help that our community uses a different connotation for edit than does the rest of the world (i.e. to save a revision of a MediaWiki page vs. make changes to an existing document.) Happy holidays, -Dan On Dec 24, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > On 24 December 2010 10:20, HW wrote: > >>> A recent discussion on zh Wikipedia is talking about the WMF private policy >>> which is on http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy . Some IP >>> user >>> says that in the sentence "The Foundation does not require editors to >>> register >>> with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which >>> case they will be identified by network IP address." , createpage is a edit, >>> so the wiki should not disable IP's createpage and allowed only user to >>> createpage. >>> >>> The question is: IS CREATEPAGE MUST NOT BE DISABLE TO IP USER? > > The short answer is: disabling createpage for IPs does not conflict > with the privacy policy and is *allowed*. (zhwp can always decide to > turn it back on, though. This is also allowed!) > > "Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case > they will be identified by network IP address". > > The intent of that line is really to say "if you edit without a > username, you will still be recorded" rather than to provide an > absolute right for all edits of any form to be IP-based. > > Remember, "normal" editing isn't allowed all the time. If we say that > createpage should be allowed because it is an edit, and edits should > always be allowed, we could also argue that no pages should be > semi-protected (people are stopped from editing them without > usernames) or IPs blocked (those people are stopped from editing > without usernames). Createpage is just a version of the same idea... > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Korean Wikipedians charged with "criminal defamation:" a potential threat of censorship
The Colorado law has been significantly weakened in the past year. See Mink v. Knox, No. 08-1250 (10th Cir. July 19, 2010), slip. op. at 26. -Dan On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > An example of an actual prosecution: > > http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20937 > > Fred > >> This seems to be an example of the trouble that the Wikipedia:Biographies >> of living persons policy on the English Wikipedia is crafted to avoid, >> unsourced or poorly sourced negative information about a living person >> can be removed immediately by any editor. Here, if I'm reading right, it >> was put back up again despite being repeatedly removed. >> >> Another aspect of this is that if there is a law around, even a disused, >> rarely enforced law, the possibility exists that someone will evoke it >> and put you into court with baleful consequences, even if you "win" in >> the end. For example in Colorado there is a criminal libel law that >> covers the dead, see >> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation >> How one could fully comply with such a monstrosity as that is beyond me. >> >> Fred >> >> User:Fred Bauder >> >> >>> At most four Korean Wikipedians are charged with defamation of Song >>> Young-gil, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City. >>> >>> According to the contributors, the prosecution is upon the Song's own >>> request, and is going to be over publicizing a fabricated sex scandal >>> in the article about him and (semi-)protecting it. The text in >>> question is merely a sum-up of various reports about the speculations >>> eventually found to be a hoax. Non-logged-in user(s) from various IP >>> addresses have tried to remove the whole controversy section, >>> including not only the scandal but other arguments about him, >>> replacing it with personal contrary comments and legal threats. The >>> edits are consequently reverted by some users and rollbacked by one >>> administrator. The admin, [[ko:User:Kys951]], is also accused of >>> being an abettor just because he is an admin. >>> >>> In the South Korean legal system, criminal defamation is partially a >>> "crime upon complaint," (ì¹œê³ ì£„/親告罪) which becomes irrelevant >>> to >>> be a >>> crime when the complainant chose to withdraw the case. (Note that I'm >>> not a specialist of law, especially in English terminology.) The >>> police of Southeastern Incheon thought the case itself is too >>> insignificant to be a criminal case and tried to persuade him to >>> withdraw it, only to be declined. >>> >>> Song has reportedly demanded the admin to remove the paragraph in >>> exchange for fixing the charge, which is definitely not the way how >>> Wikipedia works. >>> >>> Another concern about this incident is that this could happen to every >>> bit of contribution to the project. South Korean government had been >>> censoring any scribble on the web they think beneficial to North >>> Korea,[2] and for later on, anything they think "fraudulent" whenever >>> the state is in "threat," according to an exclusive report.[3] >>> >>> [1] >>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ko/w/index.php?title=%EC%86%A1%EC%98%81%EA%B8%B8&diff=5832689 >>> [2] >>> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/shame_on_democratic_south_korea_for_censoring_face.php >>> [3] http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/it/455022.html >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
Kibble, you never cease to amaze. Much <3. That's a great summary. -Dan On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > wrote: >> Please stop it: this is incorrect and perhaps you should at least double >> check if someone says it's incorrect, especially after a WMF staffer >> like Jon has confirmed so. > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Huib Laurens wrote: >> Why are you saying the staff answer is wrong? If staff says use >> le...@wikimedia.org why are you changing it? > > Wow, you guys need to stop being so accusatory and rude; please stop > assuming bad faith. No one's calling anyone a liar and they're both > actually right, but in different ways. > > Dan's working with the Foundation for the fundraiser (so he's a > "staffer" too), was an early legal intern, and has manned the legal > queue on OTRS for years. Jon is a relatively new staffer with Office > IT who's been helping cleanup e-mail addresses, aliases, and > everything else related to Office IT. > > Stated simply, Jon was giving a *technical* answer, while Dan was > giving a more *procedural* and policy-based answer. > > Here's the full story/background, as far as I know: > > Traditionally, we never really published a "legal" address. All > complaints/issues were directed to the general Wikimedia contact > address (i...@wikimedia), which leads to OTRS. These complaints were > then later sorted to their proper destination: info-en, another > language queue, out to a staff member, to the legal queue, etc. > Tickets needing legal team attention, like from real lawyers talking > about litigation, went to the legal queue. Since the legal queue/team > is quite small and most people do not actually need to talk to them, > we never publicized the direct address to the legal queue... this is > the legal-en@ address that Dan's talking about. > > More recently, a "legal@" alias has been created which goes straight > to the current/interim General Counsel. I would assume that the > reason this was created was because the Foundation has started using > aliases a lot more. They probably didn't realize that we > intentionally didn't make that address since most people didn't > actually *need* the GC... or they did realize that, but decided it > wouldn't be an issue anymore and decided that an alias would be a good > idea anyway. :-) > > As Dan says, they'll need to figure out internally how mail should be > redirected properly and how to make the best use of both the legal > team and the interim GC's times. However, I wanted to make it clear > that neither of them is really "wrong" or calling each other a liar. > :-) > > -- > Casey Brown > Cbrown1023 > > ___ > 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] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
Pedro- Correct, it's just set up wrong on OTRS. Right now Legal@ is not even an OTRS email address. If it were, we could then structure it so the languages were subqueues. But that'd require legal@ becoming an OTRS email address. Huib - The staff (myself and Jon) are saying two different, contradictory things. We are trying to figure out if this is because of an undiscussed change of policy, or because Jon misspoke. It is of major concern, because if all legal emails are now going directly to the interim GC, then what is the point of having a legal queue for OTRS? But none of this was ever discussed with us, making me think that it is more likely just a mistake. The policy as long as I've been answering emails for the legal queue (and to be clear, it was still the policy when I started working full time for the foundation and at a meeting about a month ago it was still the policy) was that legal emails were to go through OTRS, where they would be routed into the legal queue (more accurately, the legal-en queue. We also have a very full legal-it subqueue and some specific trademark subqueues.) Those emails would then be screened by the OTRS legal volunteers, and some would be answered or weeded out there. The more important ones would be forwarded on to the General Counsel (or now, Interim General Counsel). Why would it make sense at all to get rid of the screening on OTRS, without discussion with the OTRS team, and suddenly route ALL emails directly to the Interim General Counsel. Does that make any logical sense? Again, this is why I think that there has been a mistake somewhere. We're emailing internally to figure out what the right answer is. -Dan (PS: this is my personal account, my staff account is not subscribed to foundation-l). On Dec 18, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Huib Laurens wrote: >> Why are you saying the staff answer is wrong? If staff says use >> le...@wikimedia.org why are you changing it? >> >> Best, >> >> Huib >> >> > > wasn't legal-en@ about english queries? > > in any case, it makes more sense to have legal@ for a *foundation* > contact, and then have legal-en as a subqueue for english wikipedia > (and related projects) > > ___ > 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] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
Correction. I've just seen Jon's email about having fixed le...@. However, it is still preferable to send legal email to legal...@wikimedia.org for a faster resolution and for ease on our end. Nobody has made the OTRS team (especially the legal team) aware of any policy changes on that end, so if something major has changed without telling us, someone's got some explaining to do. -Dan On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Dan Rosenthal, 17/12/2010 01:01: >> If you have a legal question, best to send it to legal...@wikimedia.org. It >> will be routed much faster and is much preferable. > > Please stop it: this is incorrect and perhaps you should at least double > check if someone says it's incorrect, especially after a WMF staffer > like Jon has confirmed so. > «00:18 <+sgardner> If anyone (editors, chapters people, etc.) have legal > questions or problems, Steven's correct -- legal_AT_wikimedia.org is > where to send them» > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-10-27 ). > I hope this is enough. > > Nemo > > ___ > 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] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
Jon, That must be a new change about le...@wikimedia.org, as the email didn't work as of a few weeks ago. I wasn't aware of that. However, from a policy perspective, we've always screened the email first at legal...@wikimedia.org before sending it on to the GC. So in fact, that would still be the better place for it to go. -Dan On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > I've been taking care of these aliases, so to be clear: * > le...@wikimedia.org is a good and valid address to use*. It is an alias > that goes to the correct person(s), being our interim legal council. When > we get a new full time council, the alias will be repointed to them. So > le...@wikimedia.org will always be a good and safe bet. > > -Jon > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 07:28, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > >> That email is incorrect. >> >> The direct email is legal...@wikimedia.org. >> >> As far as I know, simply le...@wikimedia.org forwards to >> bo...@wikimedia.org or some other email address; either way, not where it >> needs to go. >> >> -Dan >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Huib Laurens wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As far as I know: le...@wikimedia.org >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Huib >>> ___ >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Jon Davis > Office IT System & Network Administrator > Wikimedia Foundation > 415-839-6885 > ___ > 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] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
Nemo, It is in fact correct. I can confirm this, because I am the primary person who screens those questions that come in to legal-en. Sue or Steven can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm 99% sure that they misspoke -- le...@wikimedia has been a broken and useless address for long before I started working for the WMF. -Dan Rosenthal On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Dan Rosenthal, 17/12/2010 01:01: >> If you have a legal question, best to send it to legal...@wikimedia.org. It >> will be routed much faster and is much preferable. > > Please stop it: this is incorrect and perhaps you should at least double > check if someone says it's incorrect, especially after a WMF staffer > like Jon has confirmed so. > «00:18 <+sgardner> If anyone (editors, chapters people, etc.) have legal > questions or problems, Steven's correct -- legal_AT_wikimedia.org is > where to send them» > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-10-27 ). > I hope this is enough. > > Nemo > > ___ > 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] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
That might work, but it is the least ideal way of getting in touch. If you have a legal question, best to send it to legal...@wikimedia.org. It will be routed much faster and is much preferable. -Dan On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:29 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > WMF Legal has a email assigned to it, so you can email it via the wiki > interface if you would like: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/WMF_Legal > > ___ > 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] How to contact the foundation's legal department?
That email is incorrect. The direct email is legal...@wikimedia.org. As far as I know, simply le...@wikimedia.org forwards to bo...@wikimedia.org or some other email address; either way, not where it needs to go. -Dan On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Huib Laurens wrote: > Hello, > > As far as I know: le...@wikimedia.org > > Best, > > Huib > ___ > 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] "Personal Appeals for individual editors" strikes the right chord
On Dec 5, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Alec Conroy wrote: > I just wanted to write in to compliment all those who are behind the > banners on the site right now-- Personal Appeals from individual > editors with inspiring visions about how Wikimedia can help change the > world for the better. > > This, to me, is is what a 'Wikimedia Fundraiser' should feel like-- > it's hopeful, it's upbeat. It's visionary, it's populist. It's > polished and sleek without boring and homogenous. It pulls at the > readers heartstrings, and it effectively communicates 'why' everyone > cares so much about this movement. The personal appeals remind us > that we're not "just a cool website" run by a gaggle of geeks-- we're > a social movement trying to help bring light to all the corners of the > globe. On behalf of the other Community Associates on the fundraising team, thanks Alec. We did intend this fundraiser to be populist, especially the Personal Appeals on the editor campaign. To that end, if you'd like to help out with the fundraiser further, please contact me directly and I can help figure out where to place you. Thanks again for the compliment, we really are proud of the fundraiser. -- Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
We should all be asking "Is there really a problem here that would justify creating a major exception to our privacy policies?" -- because I haven't seen one. Did anyone notice how some of the earlier posts were suggesting that it was OK because people can anonymize themselves with a proxy or some other option -- a situation that would require a user (possibly one with no understanding of the concept of open proxies) to take technical steps simply to "opt-in" to privacy. Also, did anyone think to ask the tech team whether they'd be OK shouldering the burden of releasing these logs? Or the OTRS team whether they're OK with dealing the email burden that would come with that? Or Communications to see whether they agree with the negative PR of this? Any one of these above steps would probably have revealed that it is a bad idea. Just sayin. -Dan On Nov 28, 2010, at 3:41 PM, dinar qorbanof wrote: > :) ok then. thank you. i should ask first whether wikipedia collects logs. > > 2010/11/28 aude : >> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, wrote: >> >>> I'm afraid our Tatar is correct in some senses and others in this thread >>> are in a failing or failed mode. >>> >>> Each web server, of which the WMF has a few, collects details on the >>> behaviour of IPs, in logs. Those logs can be and probably have been >>> requested by >>> certain government officials, most likely for the purpose of tracking down >>> who is behind a certain "Bad" posting to a BLP. >>> >>> >> CheckUser data (IPs of editors) are kept for 3 months. >> >> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/CheckUser/CheckUser.php?view=markup >> >> WMF does not keep apache logs which would track what pages people are >> reading.'' >> >> http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/httpd.conf (see CustomLog which is commented >> out, meaning that access logs are not kept) >> >> There are some logs for the squid servers which are used to generate page >> view stats, but those take a 1/1000 sample and there are full squid logs for >> click throughs on the fundraising banners. >> >> http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Squid_logging >> >> So, we do not have readership logs except for the sampled squid logs. For >> performance reasons, it's not desirable to collect more detailed logs, nor >> would we really want them. >> >> -Katie (@aude) >> >> >>> In addition, courts can make such orders in order to determine an otherwise >>> "John Doe" named in a suit, such as for libel, etc. It's happened it will >>> continue to happen, the WMF does keep such logs. >>> >>> Knowing the IP, it can then be tracked back to that user's ISP and a log >>> again requested to determine the exact person, or at least business or >>> household, who used the IP at that exact time. So playing with words, >>> doesn't let >>> us get around that point. >>> >>> I'm still not clear why we would want to know the IP exactly for analytical >>> purposes. Some intrepid programmer could write a program which would >>> simply collect detailed analysis of a person's in-world behaviour and call >>> them >>> "Bob992" instead of 13.42.204.192 or whatever. Making the information >>> packets anonymous. That would still allow any sort of analysis the Tatars >>> want to >>> make, and not reveal any private information. >> >> >>> W >>> ___ >>> 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 >> > > > > and i write again, do not you or somebody know why my messages are not > published in the official mail archive? i do not format my message > correctly? > > ___ > 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] Corporate Social Responsibility
Noein, you keep saying that the community does or does not believe a certain way. To my knowledge there have been no studies of socioeconomic perspectives and policies of community members to support your argument. If there are and I'm mistaken, I'd love to know as that would be very interesting information. Dan Sent from my iPad On Nov 20, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Noein wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote: >> On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein wrote: >> >>> I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close >>> your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The >>> Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine". >> >> >> You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed >> yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted >> upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity >> of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be >> saying you have been. > > I was used to more respectful manners from you, David. > > The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already > happening in Wikipedia. > The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the > oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are > not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the > community. > - From there I see three paths: > - - ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong > - - help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage > in higher ethics. > - - alert the community > > Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try > the civilized ways of talking and listening. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6J4+AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LU3kH+wQgX5M44Hi6m9GTr/sJpC2G > pPSvxQe3b/P+K5zunFU0G9CIs47F3xLPYvQ5vhkSZVOVUvKPvuOr5WGME8rck4VA > e8CjAIQ+HQr4YY82DeiNuYA/19e7zRqKLS4PS9ham6z1opHVPy5rzA8yqbo0EMU6 > FtjHNvJEGsM1HQ6Eq9lRAm5bJBC50tx7VxPtA1DjFam1Fv2DY78XB3j6WcFzsc4t > WYHSzu5KgevkQs5LijZCtCeetkpaCwdCalwvRlPln8hD1yZVay/IWnCI+x7KxM9K > CItpWox5/ZkOiNdbzK4qxSJOCdSu6fuagx7OuGejZLnn19u9U5AFw+Ml2VtzATE= > =Nny+ > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > 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] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Noein wrote: > Thank you everybody for explaining your views. > Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and > believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest > ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones - who > are just good enough to give their money and effort. As a matter of > fact, their society seems organized to maximize money and it is echoed > in their opinion about how to manage this huge collaborative effort > about knowledge called Wikipedia. I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what I've seen from the replies so far. I think a more accurate representation is that you place transparency as a higher priority than personal privacy, even when such transparency is beyond what is necessary and would cause harm to the individual, on the sake of principle; you also seem unwilling to accept that employees can be paid a competitive salary and provide a valuable service to the foundation that merits such a salary (despite that we pay well below competitive salaries for attorneys -- as Fred Bauder pointed out, the standard salary for a first year attorney (or a 2nd year law student as a summer associate) at a major New York or D.C. law firm is 160,000 before bonuses -- more than Mike makes. ) But it is a ridiculous assertion to suggest that people on this list believe in a world of cold, unfeeling, unfettered capitalism where the acquisition of money is the single highest priority in life. Your perspective seems to be that Gordon Gekko would be right at home working for Wikimedia. My experience with the staff over the years has been the exact opposite. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Nov 19, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Risker wrote: > On 19 November 2010 18:39, Noein wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> > of employees past and present of the WMF> >> > > Noein, I believe you will find the answers you seek in the latest 503(c) > filing that the WMF has published. The WMF met the legislated requirements > for reporting of salaries of certain individuals as well as the overall > payroll. I'm not personally going to go looking for that document, but it's > on the WMF website and I'm pretty sure someone reading this can provide you > with a direct link. I don't recall who was on that list, other than Sue > Gardner. > > I'm also not going to guess what the reporting requirements are for the US > government without the documents in front of me, but I'll note that other > jurisdictions require either disclosure of the individual salaries of X > number of the highest paid employees or, in some cases, of each employee > earning over Y amount. I've seen a fair number of these sorts of fiduciary > declarations made under various local laws for non-profits and charities, > and none of them require the public disclosure of each individual employee's > salary. > > I hope you will agree that the reporting made under the applicable > government legislation and regulation should probably be the place where the > personal privacy/public information line should be drawn, because it is > consistent across the entire non-profit sector. > > So...could someone please add a link to the latest filing? Thanks. > > Risker/Anne > They should be on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, in the sidebar in the "Corporate" collapsible box. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Noein wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard wrote: On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud wrote: > Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. >>> >>> Yes, but it would be good if we would have "Social Contract", like >>> Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract >>> >> >> We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point >> of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you >> add or emphasize? > > I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about > money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example: > > "The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that > we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he > wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we > won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured > that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to > advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him > continue making an important contribution." [1] > > > As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public > money. There should be no "confidential" secret about where it ends, and > how much, and why. > > I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I > should understand such decision to hide facts. > > > [1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link > to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5uyDAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LAHMH+gMJJzFG4+hyGhuzfTw1bLYz > FW9NZiERaVArsMC6YA27ps0AK/ubX2/+qMGT/E11wlMX2ptBul82QQywZmQp+qSj > fQ7+rbd5j4h1FAN/mYId2IlJ7g8JFwZ2jAD7UZyKfCIqKHWqBZQC8DiQ2W6DbTs2 > iGGA8NDhlrUCO1YE8N/lz5cmGJ2mKGE/EcYwEvmQ+lsrXX99OsqHpEjx2a3VVRuq > C4uM9XvrQWUb++h7nmO2/cTLxqJ1TdTiooEXIvzEHeEhjEUjbxBP3syJYaz6QFn6 > ENYzV5aqhGVivB+u+zXq4mAFGYj1vaq0UAep5bInXdOKkL9kUbPGdEMQnp7Y/cs= > =6q+Y > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Just a few personal musings -- Noein, personally, I would think that a "duty of transparency about money" and publicizing information about a private employee's salary, benefits, or severance packages are two wildly different things. There is a certain point where things become a matter of personal privacy, after all. You say you have no clue about how you should understand a decision to "hide facts". Does that mean we should publicize his medical records too? Those are facts as well. How transparent would we need to be? Should we put his salary history for every job he's worked in his life on his article? Corporate Social Responsibility applies just as much to transparency as it does to protecting the privacy of its employees. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia
To be fair, the DNI is a relative a friend of mine and I am pretty sure he does not personally publish much of anything on the website. But the point is probably well taken. -Dan On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia > being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself > publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail: > > http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf > > A. > > --- On Tue, 3/8/10, Nathan wrote: > > > From: Nathan > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia > > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" < > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Date: Tuesday, 3 August, 2010, 23:45 > > > > > > The story has now been picked up by other news > > agencies from the geeky > > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml > > to the > > > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of > > which > > > pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for > > one discovered this > > > story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning > > Herald today which calls > > > it a "politely feisty response". > > > > > > -Liam > > > > > > Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone > > got it from > > someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a > > 3rd in the > > mix). > > > > Nathan > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation
Cary, Hopefully, your successor will be even a fraction of you, in every way. Dan Rosenthal On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > Thank you for all you have done, and the very best of wish for all your > future endeavours. > > KTC > > -- > Experience is a good school but the fees are high. > - Heinrich Heine > > ___ > 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] Boycott in a...@wiki
If you think about it, one could interpret consensus as pushing one groups opinion on another. Doesn't make it wrong. -Dan On Jul 18, 2010, at 5:21 PM, James Alexander wrote: > The only thing I see coming out of this at the moment is > "proof" that we are indeed pushing our own opinion on the local community > and as many problems I see with the template I'm not sure this is being > handled well :(. ___ 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"
Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway. -Dan On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters 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? > > Sincerely, > Jeffrey Peters > aka Ottava Rima > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> >>> Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following >> you. >> >> >> It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread. >> >> >> - d. >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."
Isn't the quote backwards? "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. It could never work in theory"? -Dan On Jun 17, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in theory. It could > never work in practice." > > I've seen that quote attributed to Jimmy, and also to Miikka Ryokas, > quoted by Noam Cohen in his NY Times story about Virginia Tech. But > neither of them, I think, originated it. > > Does anyone have a good attribution for first use of that quote? (I'm > using it in a presentation and want to attribute if I can.) > > Thanks, > Sue > > > > > -- > Sue Gardner > Executive Director > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415 839 6885 office > 415 816 9967 cell > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > 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: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia
I think the immediate question would be this: Ignoring the question of
trademark infringement for the moment, what way would the Persian Wikipedia
WANT to do it? Is there a standard that is used for non-trademarked things when
there is no Persian word in existence to describe the title? For example,
hypothetically, lets say "water" had no direct Persian equivalent. Would users
prefer option 1 ("water" in English script) or option 2 (Persian script that
phonetically spells out "water")? It would make sense to me that where Option 3
exists, it would be the preferred option, but what about when it doesn't?
-Dan
On Jun 10, 2010, at 1:09 AM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member.
>
> The question pertains to translation of trademarks within articles; to my
> knowledge, there's nothing wrong with us doing so, and I think this is done
> in many Wikipedias. But I'll defer to the list on this question.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Amir sarabadani
> Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM
> Subject: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia
> To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> Hello,
> I'm one of Persian wikipedia users.for making pages same name of
> trademarks (e.g. films ,games.etc.) we have several choices:
> 1-we use same name and same alphabetical with trademark(e.g.
> Google-->Google)
> 2-we same name but Persian Script(e.g. Call of duty-->کال آو دیوتی/KAL
> AV DIUTI/)
> 3-we translate it(Prince of Persian-->شاهزاده ایرانی /SHAHZADE IRANI
> means Prince of Persia)
> Users of Persian wikipedia (with consequence) use third way usually
> but I think change of trademarks is crime and maybe create legal
> problem for the Foundation
>
> Please tell us what we do or maybe i think wrong please tell me.
> Thanks and best wishes
> --
> Amir
> ___
> 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] Amidst all the chaos...
Here here. There is a tactical map of 18th century Boston by Lt. Page of the British Army on commons that I really am just blown away by. I believe it is a featured picture, if anyone is interested. Also I saw a brilliant photo of a homeless person in Philidelphia that could have been put on a magazine cover. We are fortunate to have these things. Let's not forget this. On May 21, 2010 5:09 PM, "AGK" wrote: 2010/5/21 Delphine Ménard : > ...we should not forget, that there are on Commons some of the most > beautiful images I've ever s... Well said. AGK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikime... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On May 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real >> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I >> acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit >> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > > In the immortal words of Judge Judy; "Perfect, PERFECT!". > > == Perfect == > > I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community > that there would be no repeat performance. This is a risk-management > issue: why would a commons user take an initiative that might be > marginalized or rendered futile in the near future? > > That kind of situation has a paralysing effect on a community. > > The paralysing effect has now been largely negated. > Perfect. > > == PERFECT! == > > Do you know how long I've been trying to encourage experienced/high profile > admins to hand in their flags? > > Why? It's a Poka-yoke / idiot-proofing measure > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke > > As a precaution, one should not take (high profile) actions, without > confirming it with at least one other person in the relevant community.[1] > > By not having the requisite permissions oneself, one is forced to talk > with someone who does, no matter how impatient, panicked, or tired one > is. Obviously this doesn't catch all edge-cases, but it certainly > reduces the number of ways in which things can go wrong. > > In this case, Jimbo Wale's founder flag gave him _Uber_-Admin powers. > That's Got to Lead To Uber-Pain. And It Did. > > > So now that's fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy's influence > in the community didn't actually *increase* due to this. [2] > > PERFECT! > > == Me three? == > > Jimmy Wales correctly identifies the fact that experienced > users who do hand in their flag should still be able to view > things, such as deleted pages, etc. > > In fact, the reason that I haven't been able to convince fellow > admins to retire, is because they really didn't want to lose > their viewing abilities. > > > Before, I was but a single voice, calling in the dark. But Now! Now that > the world's most high profile Wikipedian has *de-facto* finally > vindicated my position, after all these years... > > > ... it would be really nice to have a similar set of permissions > for "retired" admins and stewards. Please? > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning > > [1]It is always wise to work in pairs anyway. Ask Ward Cunningham, or > any other Agile-type person you know! > > [2] This wouldn't be immediate. First some wounds will need to heal, > of course. And people still need to vent their catharthic > venting for now. > This email is twice as good when you read it in Judge Judy's voice. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Threading
On May 8, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: >> If someone will tell me how to get messages to thread if you're in >> digest mode - I've been making honest efforts to try and get threading >> - I will happily use whatever technique is suggested. Until then, I >> apologise for killing threads. >> > > Well, first of all, it's best to *not* use digest. You use gmail, so > all of the e-mails would be threaded together automatically if you > turned digest off. > > If you won't turn off digest mode, you should probably copy the > "Subject" for the message you're replying to and put that as the > subject for the new e-mail you create. > > -- > Casey Brown > Cbrown1023 > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Even that solution sometimes creates new threads, for reasons unbeknownst to me. Turning off Digest mode is the best solution. Digest is intended for people who only intend on reading and replying infrequently; Adam is not that person. With the frequencies of his replies he'd be better suited for individual emails mode. -Dan ___ 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 74, Issue 28
Adam, You've made your point. I and other list readers don't need my email box stuffed full with dozens of new posts from the same person saying substantively the same thing, with different subjects. If anyone had confusion about where you stand on this issue, it was clarified long ago. Continued repetition is utterly unhelpful. -Dan On May 8, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > Way to go. You pulled a media stunt and alienated your volunteers who > actually do the work, because you care more about an extremely > conservative television station in America than the worldwide audience > Wikipedia serves and which is the primary source of donations to the > project. > > > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: >> The correct storyline is that Mr. Wales caved to the slightest bit of >> media pressure and engaged in full-out censorship of artworks and >> diagrams, showing that anyone who wants to get something removed from >> Wikipedia just has to threaten Mr. Wales. >> >> This was a disgraceful action, made all the more disgraceful by you >> not being honest as to the reason for your actions up until now. You >> kept the media pressure secret from the community, and claimed it was >> a legal issue. >> >> Disgraceful! >> >>> Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 17:19:58 +0400 >>> From: Victor Vasiliev >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where things stand now >>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >>> >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it. >>> >>> Do you understand that not all images you deleted were hardcore pornography? >>> What was the reason of wheel warring on them? >>> >>> --vvv >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >>> >>> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 74, Issue 28 >>> >>> >> > > ___ > 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] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On May 7, 2010, at 12:21 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> On May 6, 2010, at 10:24 PM, geni wrote: >>> >>> 3D objects could already be supported as .blend files although we >>> don't at this point. >>> >>> -- >>> geni >> >> But not the manipulation of them in a fully interactive physics based 3d >> environment with simultaneous interaction from thousands of other concurrent >> users. > > That is "virtual reality" for its own sake, rather than for > instructional benefits. > And consider those "concurrent users" including children. > > There is a lot of research about the pedagogical and epistemological > opportunities in VR, but the cases were it is clearly beneficial are > not numerous and probably only useful on Wikiversity, and I doubt you > will find anyone advocating for the educational advantages of > "interaction from .. concurrent [pseudonymous adults and children]". > > -- > John Vandenberg I strongly disagree. There are clear educational benefits for it, exemplified for instance by the massive amount of spending that the militaries around the world have spent on virtual worlds training systems such as VBS2 as educational devices. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On May 6, 2010, at 10:24 PM, geni wrote: > On 7 May 2010 03:17, Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> The obvious example that comes to mind is the 3D virtual world physics as a >> tool for disseminating knowledge. For instance, I was looking up various >> model Porsche race cars the other day on Wikipedia. No amount of text can >> truly describe the intangible differences in control between driving a >> Porsche and a Ferrari. If one could go into a virtual world and drive a >> virtual representation of one, we've filled a knowledge gap. >> >> Don't get hung up on the fact that this (used) to be a game, but rather view >> it as an open source 3D virtual world environment that can scale to an >> extremely large number of simultaneous users. It's a framework, which can be >> evolved over time -- that's something we should at least be keeping an eye >> on and encouraging, while exploring what ways we can integrate our content. >> >> -Dan > > 3D objects could already be supported as .blend files although we > don't at this point. > > -- > geni > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l But not the manipulation of them in a fully interactive physics based 3d environment with simultaneous interaction from thousands of other concurrent users. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
The obvious example that comes to mind is the 3D virtual world physics as a tool for disseminating knowledge. For instance, I was looking up various model Porsche race cars the other day on Wikipedia. No amount of text can truly describe the intangible differences in control between driving a Porsche and a Ferrari. If one could go into a virtual world and drive a virtual representation of one, we've filled a knowledge gap. Don't get hung up on the fact that this (used) to be a game, but rather view it as an open source 3D virtual world environment that can scale to an extremely large number of simultaneous users. It's a framework, which can be evolved over time -- that's something we should at least be keeping an eye on and encouraging, while exploring what ways we can integrate our content. -Dan On May 6, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Nathan wrote: > I think the MMOEnvironment (not really a role-playing game in this > context, is it?) is an interesting forum for experimentation, but > non-game uses are still completely undeveloped. It's ripe for an > entrepreneur, but I'm not sure what the WMF could do with such an > environment. How would a vast knowledgebase be visually represented in > a navigable world? What advantages would that offer? Given the > comparatively high costs of maintaining this sort of effort, and the > unknown potential, I can't see the WMF moving into MMOEs soon. I'd be > interested to sign-up with any organization that makes the attempt, > though. > > Nathan > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia iPhone app goes v2.0
On May 2, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Stephen Bain wrote: > >> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, James Alexander >> wrote: >>> Yea it is :) >> >> The source to which seems to be located here: >> >> http://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-iphone >> >> I fixed the link on the description page on MediaWiki.org (1), which >> was pointing to the wrong branch. It seems to be out of date in other >> ways too. >> >> Any reason why this isn't in SVN? >> >> -- >> (1) http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_iPhone_app >> >> -- >> Stephen Bain >> stephen.b...@gmail.com >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > Droid, plz. Google, facebook and Wikipedia take over the world. > > -- > ~Keegan Yes, seconding. Droid and iPad versions would be the unparalleled hotness. (yes, I'm that weird guy who uses a Droid with my iPad instead of an iPhone. ) Seriously, one of the things I love about the iPad is the design philosophy in the native full-size iPad apps. They're allowing a LOT of information to be presented in an organized fashion, something I think that is perfect for a mobile Wikipedia app. -Dan ___ 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.
>> >> >> I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in >> question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map >> is "absurdity" is itself wrong. >> >> -Dan >> > If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of > maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining > to digital maps, i.e. the very "non-pictoral fact compilations" > mentioned in the statement you provided. > > - -- > Cary Bass > Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation It may have started off that way, but my impression was it quickly became "All maps are free". That may have been a misinterpretation of GerardM's post. My broader point is that the situation is not entirely black and white. Blanket statements that "all X can never be done" are a bit dangerous to make. -Dan ___ 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.
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic nature". "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature." See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > >> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items >> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from >> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what >> is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. >> Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material.>> > > Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and > latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" is > copyrightable? > > Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, > as an entirety is copyrightable. > > W.J. > ___ > 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] How to reply to a mailing list thread
Assuming that other people care about ones own form of mailing choice is crap also, as far as this list is concerned. Let people do as they choose. Nobody forces you to read their posts. On Mar 30, 2010 7:45 PM, wrote: Top posting is not what *creates* the crap. Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable) and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either! Personally I don't want to scroll down through a 200 word email just to see "me too" at the very bottom. The real issue to me, is that those who have an email client which copies the entire email in response, don't trim the verbage. W.J. In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:15:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jay...@gmail.com writes: > I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow > mobi... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimed... ___ 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
How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own website? In what universe is this logical? The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the owner of that logo will disallow the use. We do not have this problem. The trademark policy also makes it perfectly clear that downstream uses under the guise of nominative fair use are permissible, so that's not a concern either. Sothis is a "solution" in search of a problem. -Dan On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > So, if we don't allow the use of the > logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then > it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the > articles describing them. ___ 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
> 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. What is rational about taking a scenario to the extreme? We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not the same as NO unfree content. It does not follow that because we cannot have ZERO unfree content, than we should be able to use everyone elses unfree stuff. That is not a logical conclusion, nor is it rational. The fact is, regardless of any other circumstance, the Wikimedia logos are one, small, limited exception. Comparing them to Coca-Cola, or Volvo, or anything else is ridiculous, because those companies do not operate Wikipedia. Nor does it make sense to complain about the logo hindering free reuse. We allow nearly all of our content to be reused, as Mike said, subject to the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses. This is not free reuse. It is reuse subject to some restrictions. The fact that we have trademark protection for the WMF logos has essentially no relationship to downstream use of content. Don't confuse the source identifier with the content itself. These are different things. So again, I see nothing rational nor logical with what Sv.Wp is doing. They are taking these examples to hyperbolic extremes over an insignificant issue, in order to prove a point. A point, I should note, that does NOT further the success of WMF's mission; in fact it directly hinders it, as Mike pointed out with regard to the licenses. (this is ignoring, of course, all the misconstruals of copyright as trademark, and vice versa which add further unnecessary fuel to the fire). -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is "Wiktionary" copyright?
I think the bigger question would be "Why did Open Democracy copy a mediawiki installation and at least some content from Wiktionary, but change the license to CC-BY-NC-ND and not credit Wiktionary on the history page?" So in fact, I believe copyright IS at issue here. -Dan On Mar 28, 2010, at 6:48 PM, effe iets anders wrote: > I assume you are referring to the term trademarked rather than copyrighted. > I suggest you contact Mike Godwin directly with this kind of questions, he > is handling those. > > With kind regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2010/3/29 Andrew Turvey > >> Is the term "Wiktionary" copyrighted? I only ask because the OpenDemocracy >> website has recently started a "Dictionary of Ethical Politics >> "wikitionary"" >> >> http://resurgence.opendemocracy.net/index.php/Main_Page >> >> If it is copyrighted, you may want to say something to them, or else it >> will end up like the "hoover" - a generic term usable by anyone. >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
You've identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be easily abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the EFF is probably getting involved over). However, the proper response to that is for the alleged infringer to request sanctions against the copyright holder for misrepresentation. It's not the Foundation's place to get involved, nor the proper use of their resources to second and third-guess these decisions. They take the office action, remove whatever it is, and if the underlying legal battle gets fought, they can then go and reverse it. So no, there's no obligation to interject ourselves, but more importantly I think we DO have an obligation to respect the existing legal system as well as protect the entire project from litigation. Dan Rosenthal On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM, wrote: > > But Dan your reply allows any illegitimate claim of copyright infringement > to be acted upon as an office action. > > It's possible that we could say that the office cannot know whether a claim > is legitimate or not, but if the office is informed through a reliable > source that a claim is illegitimate and they have taken action, are they > obligated to refuse the positive action they've taken? > > That's the issue. > > W. J. > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dan Rosenthal > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 7:26 pm > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy > > > I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not > the > "person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the freedom > or > the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute between TI and > another user. It's not their determination to make whether the action is > necessary or not. > > -Dan > On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Techman224 wrote: > > > It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its > "Office > actions" policy removed and oversighted the signing keys for Texas > Instruments > calculators under a DMCA takedown notice on October 7, 2009. Cary Bass then > oversighted all revisions that had the signing keys. Let me just say it > might > not be necessary to continue to block the signing keys. The Electronic > Frontier > Foundation has reported that they warned Texas Instruments about the DMCA > notices as noted, "the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering to create > interoperable custom software like the programs the hobbyists are using." > [1]. > Further Texas Instruments failed to respond to the letter and the deadline, > so > the bloggers who put up the codes put them back up. [2] Also a student at a > university who posted the keys to his own personal page at the university > filed > a DMCA 512 counternotice. With all of this is mind, as since the keys are > still > up today, could we please remove the Office action an > d allow the keys to be posted, and un-oversight all the revisions so we > could > end all this vandalism and controversy on-wiki? It would be a good step to > tell > Texas Instruments that this is just a "Baseless Legal Threat". Also, if > it's not > lifted, could the Foundation explain why isn't removing the Office action? > If we > do allow the keys on Wikipedia, I pretty much think the EFF would support > us all > the way. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Techman224 > > > > Links: > > > > [1] http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/10/13 > > [2] > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/texas-instruments-stop-digging-holes > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
No, actually it's not. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Take_down_and_Put_Back_provisions and then figure out why this is not WMF's place to get involved other than availing itself of the safe harbor protections. Hint: check step 6. -Dan On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Techman224 wrote: > Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys, > also the DMCA notice (or any other notice) > is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given > to the user who posted the content as they can't > remove content after it has been published. Since the WMF got the notice, it > is their responsibility to file a counternotice or not. > > On 2010-03-03, at 7:40 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > >> Doesn't matter how they were posted. If they were, and there is a valid >> notice, the action is to expeditiously remove them, notify the poster and >> let the poster decide if they want to counter-notice and contest it. >> >> All the second guessing in the world is irrelevant to a fight between two >> people (TI and the key-poster), neither of which are the WMF, and presumably >> neither of which are you. This is not our battle to fight. >> >> -Dan >> On Mar 3, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Techman224 wrote: >> >>> It depends on how the keys were posted and displayed on the wiki page, >>> however we can't see the revisions >>> with the keys because of the oversights, to see how they were posted and >>> where, so we are in the dark there. >>> >>> On 2010-03-03, at 4:38 AM, Chad wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:26, Dan Rosenthal wrote: >>>>>> I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is >>>>>> not the "person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have >>>>>> the freedom or the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright >>>>>> dispute between TI and another user. It's not their determination to >>>>>> make whether the action is necessary or not. >>>>> >>>>> So they are not and not theirs. Who is and whose it is? :-) >>>>> >>>>> (Unobfuscating: I guess he wanted to know what to do to get the >>>>> information back up.) >>>>> >>>>> g >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> foundation-l mailing list >>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>>>> >>>> >>>> By looking on the other sites that seem to be posting it. I don't see >>>> how posting their signing keys helps anyone trying to learn about >>>> the company. >>>> >>>> This sounds like a new case of "we want to post it because they don't >>>> want it posted" >>>> >>>> -Chad >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> foundation-l mailing list >>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > 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] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
Doesn't matter how they were posted. If they were, and there is a valid notice, the action is to expeditiously remove them, notify the poster and let the poster decide if they want to counter-notice and contest it. All the second guessing in the world is irrelevant to a fight between two people (TI and the key-poster), neither of which are the WMF, and presumably neither of which are you. This is not our battle to fight. -Dan On Mar 3, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Techman224 wrote: > It depends on how the keys were posted and displayed on the wiki page, > however we can't see the revisions > with the keys because of the oversights, to see how they were posted and > where, so we are in the dark there. > > On 2010-03-03, at 4:38 AM, Chad wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:26, Dan Rosenthal wrote: >>>> I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not >>>> the "person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the >>>> freedom or the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute >>>> between TI and another user. It's not their determination to make whether >>>> the action is necessary or not. >>> >>> So they are not and not theirs. Who is and whose it is? :-) >>> >>> (Unobfuscating: I guess he wanted to know what to do to get the >>> information back up.) >>> >>> g >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> By looking on the other sites that seem to be posting it. I don't see >> how posting their signing keys helps anyone trying to learn about >> the company. >> >> This sounds like a new case of "we want to post it because they don't >> want it posted" >> >> -Chad >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not the "person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the freedom or the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute between TI and another user. It's not their determination to make whether the action is necessary or not. -Dan On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Techman224 wrote: > It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its "Office > actions" policy removed and oversighted the signing keys for Texas > Instruments calculators under a DMCA takedown notice on October 7, 2009. Cary > Bass then oversighted all revisions that had the signing keys. Let me just > say it might not be necessary to continue to block the signing keys. The > Electronic Frontier Foundation has reported that they warned Texas > Instruments about the DMCA notices as noted, "the DMCA explicitly allows > reverse engineering to create interoperable custom software like the programs > the hobbyists are using." [1]. Further Texas Instruments failed to respond to > the letter and the deadline, so the bloggers who put up the codes put them > back up. [2] Also a student at a university who posted the keys to his own > personal page at the university filed a DMCA 512 counternotice. With all of > this is mind, as since the keys are still up today, could we please remove > the Office action and allow the keys to be posted, and un-oversight all the > revisions so we could end all this vandalism and controversy on-wiki? It > would be a good step to tell Texas Instruments that this is just a "Baseless > Legal Threat". Also, if it's not lifted, could the Foundation explain why > isn't removing the Office action? If we do allow the keys on Wikipedia, I > pretty much think the EFF would support us all the way. > > Thanks, > > Techman224 > > Links: > > [1] http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/10/13 > [2] http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/texas-instruments-stop-digging-holes > ___ > 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] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
I'm not an expert in the particular arena, but it would seem that the onus of any requirement on individual accounts lies on the account holder; it would be patently unreasonable to expect a website or service provider to have any method of enforcing that. For instance, AOL has not the slightest clue how many people utilize a single one of their accounts. It could be the credit card holder, it could be them plus their children, it could be 100 different people. They have no more restriction on whether individual accounts are needed than we do. -Dan On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, John M. Sinclair wrote: > I'm new to this discussion, so I may be inserting at the wrong place and > time, but I want to suggest that Wikipedia's counsel determine whether > the Digital Millennium Copyright Act implicitly requires individual > accounts in order to maintain the Foundation's protections under the > Act. I don't know that it does, but I think it may, or may head in that > direction. > > By the way, and by comparison, the federal courts require individual > attorney accounts for use of the online filing system (called Pacer), so > that an individual attorney must take responsibility for her or his > pleadings, and can't hide behind a firm account. Of course, you can > always locate an individual attorney, and determine what firm they work > for. > > > John Sinclair > > > -Original Message- > From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey > Plourde > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:15 PM > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees > > The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people > from disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I > feel that allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of > the policy, but suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain > a valid email and provide the Foundation with the identities of the > authorized users. > > > > > > From: Pharos > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees > > I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically > doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too > difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort. > > Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many > other websites. > > Thanks, > Pharos > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: >> Hoi, >> When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will > ask the >> person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a > block >> and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The > notion >> that a block on sight is always good is not reasonable. >> Thanks, >>GerardM >> >> >> >> 2009/12/5 John Vandenberg >> >>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen >>> wrote: Hoi, I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I > think >>> are valuable.. Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum >>> article on Commons Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of > the Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work. There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a > difference ... I would like to know more good examples.. >>> >>> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked. >>> >>> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they >>> speaking for the company? >>> >>> -- >>> John Vandenberg >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
I'd toss in there "lack of realistic expectations from your project", especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This alone can account for much of the other things you view as "breakdowns". -Dan On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale wrote: > I'm going to post a clarification as there seems to be some confusion > regarding my post: > > After we got back the original e-mail from some one at the WMF, we were > asked by four or five parties to try to continue along with the process in > order to present WMF with a kind of case study for this process. It wasn't > intended to be a formal one with a write up (though if some one wants to do > that or wants me to do that, let me know) but just so that when this issue > arose again, there would be a clear example as to how things were handled. > > My post was intended mostly as a "From my perspective, this is where the > process broke down." > > The process broke down in the following places: > > 1. Lack of a clear procedure for this in terms of what the steps should be. > 2. Lack of clarity regarding the behavioral expectations of all vested > parties in this process. > 3. Lack of a timeline for when steps should be taken. > 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. > 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. > 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. > 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new > projects. > > I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I > was attempting to accomplish with my post. > > Sincerely, > Laura Hale > ___ > 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] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for >> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. > > "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and > its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were > open proxies." > > Is that still in effect? If so, whatever slippery slope there is, has > already been begun. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l The obvious difference here being this was a ban of IP addresses owned by a particular organization, not the people behind it -- the editors of the CoS are welcome to edit from their homes or anywhere EXCEPT the IP addresses that were disrupting the project. An IP address is not a point of view. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In addition to Brad's very good points, I'd like to point out, if it hasn't been already, that any discussion on this topic also inevitably generates external criticism of "Why does XXX editor protect pedophiles"? (or even substitute Wikipedia for XXX editor). Nothing good can come of this conversation; much like nothing good came out of it the last time we had it. -Dan On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: > Let me make a few basic points here. > > 1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal > beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them. > > 2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the > issue has come up, there has been a policy (somewhat de facto, but with > high-level support) for several years of blocking self-declared > pedophiles and especially pedophile activists from editing. The > justifications for the policy include those mentioned previously in this > thread. There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to > describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, > but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether > they should be blocked or not. > > 3. I have never seen a serious argument made that self-declared pedophiles > are protected by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, and I certainly > have never seen any suggestion that the Foundation would overrule a block or > ban made by local project administrators on this basis, much less has this > actually happened or is there any likelihood it would ever happen. The > question that opened this thread, about the wording of the policy, is at > best a purely theoretical one. > > 4. It is entirely 100% predictable from experience (cf the En-Wiki userbox > wheel war case from early 2006) that this thread will quickly degenerate, if > it hasn't already, into extreme rhetoric and name-calling without producing > much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not > happen. > > Newyorkbrad > ___ > 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] Report to the Board April 2009
I want to echo Thomas's remarks. It is certainly a fine line to balance, and I am glad that the donor's concerns are on your mind. I also want to reiterate my support for an endowment. I'm not going to preach at anyone here (least of all you and Veronique) the benefits of having one, but I'm glad that it is actively on the WMF staff's mind. -Dan On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/8/12 Veronique Kessler : >> Your comment is very timely. We are, and have been, thinking about >> the >> best solution regarding extra money. First, we want to consider an >> appropriate "reserve" amount, i.e. this can range from 3 months of >> expenses for some organizations to 2 years for others. So, we are >> discussing this; there are lots of theories of the perfect amount. >> Beyond that, we are considering things like investment strategy, the >> creation of an endowment, etc.-things that can help towards ongoing >> financial sustainability. > > Thank you both for your replies. I drafted a Reserve Policy for > Wikimedia UK so I have some idea of the challenge facing you there! > I'm really glad you are giving the subject of an endowment serious > thought, I think it would be really good to have that kind of > sustainability in the future. > > ___ > 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] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
Somehow I'm not disappointed that we're having a problem trying to find a title to describe how incredibly awesome Brion is. Congrats. -Dan On Aug 8, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Jim Redmond wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 19:32, Kat Walsh > wrote: > >> Or you could have two sets of business cards. :-) >> > > And here I was going to suggest a slashed title: "Senior Software > Architect/Lead Hacker". (Maybe "Senior Software Architect/ > Sourceror" if > he's the eighth son of an eighth son.) > > Congratulations on doing the job of two, Brion. I hope we find a > good CTO > to handle the management side for you. > > -- > Jim Redmond > [[User:Jredmond]] > ___ > 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 Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote: > Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with > foundation-l. > > -Chad > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, > mizusumashi wrote: >> Hello, Huib. >> >> O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit >> history >> or other activity - I think it's very very easy -. >> >> Huib! wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be >>> important for this list. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Huib >> >> >> [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] >> >> ___ >> 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 This particular fight doesn't, no. But it does tangentially touch on the broader issue of cross-wiki policies, and instances where certain wikis "go rogue" (for instance, those that have instituted privacy policy violating user tracking systems, or where only one or two sysops exist and exercise de facto control over the entire list). I have to say, this is far from the first time I've heard stories of ja.wp administrators taking their private grievances out on contributors. Now we have them demanding that mailing users "declare their edit history or other activity?" What's next? "Let me see your identification papers?" The broader issue of "what standards should apply cross-project and cross-community" and "who should be responsible for ensuring/enforcing that certain projects do not adopt policies that violate the Foundation's mission or standards" is worthy of question on this list. I would assume that the answer to the latter question is "the stewards", but the latter question can't be solved until the former question of cross-project standards is resolved; and I don't think that it has been. If I'm wrong of course, and we've had this discussion before, I would love to be pointed to it. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board elections candidacy period time change
I find it somewhat ridiculous that someone would not know about the key dates. I've had them on my calendar for at least a month, if not more. -Dan On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > It appears that perhaps centralnotice might be working again once > you've confirmed that on local wikis, would those of you who put up > local notices kindly defer to the central notice? > > Many thanks! > > pb > On Jul 20, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > >> Thanks Robert - >> >> You're correct that extending it doesn't do much good if we don't get >> the word out. Thanks for doing this. >> >> Philippe >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: >> >>> Given that CentralNotice still isn't working, I've taken the >>> hopefully >>> temporary and short-lived approach of simulating the candidate >>> notice >>> using enwiki's local site notice. >>> >>> Extending the nomination period does little if people don't actually >>> know about it. Philippe has been posting a notice about the >>> extension >>> at various community noticeboards, but that will of course be rather >>> hit and miss. >>> >>> At the same time, creating a local site notice on one (or just a >>> few) >>> wikis could also be seen as quite hit and miss. For that reason, I >>> wanted to mention this action here in case people wanted to take >>> similar steps on other wikis. >>> >>> Hopefully though some form of CentralNotice will be restored >>> shortly. >>> >>> -Robert Rohde >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Philippe >>> Beaudette wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and active election, the election committee has determined that: - Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC) - The period for questioning candidates begins immediately. Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning. - The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on 28 July and end on 10 August. Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates. For the committee, Philippe (in my capacity as a volunteer, and not as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation) ___ 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 >> >> >> >> Philippe Beaudette >> Facilitator, Strategic Plan >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> pbeaude...@wikimedia.org >> >> >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in >> the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! >> >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> foundation-l > > > > Philippe Beaudette > Facilitator, Strategic Plan > Wikimedia Foundation > > pbeaude...@wikimedia.org > > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > 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] NIH and Wikimedia Foundation collaborate to improve online health information
I will be there to assist, for one. -Dan On Jul 14, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Hello Frank, > > This sounds very cool. Which Wikipedians will be there? Is it open to > anyone at the NIH? Is there a public agenda? > > SJ > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Frank Schulenburg > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Every day millions of people access health information online. We >> have >> recently seen some new hard evidence of Wikipedia's growing >> prominence >> as a health information resource. The rapid development and traffic >> on >> the English Wikipedia of an article on Influenza related articles >> demonstrates this trend: >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hourly_page_requests_influenza_%28April_2009%29.png >> >> Today, I'm very happy to announce that the first Wikipedia Academy >> event in the United States will take place this Thursday, July 16th >> at >> the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) headquarters in Bethesda, >> Maryland. >> >> The NIH includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the >> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary >> federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and >> translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, >> treatments and cures for both common and rare diseases. >> >> On Thursday, a team of experienced volunteer Wikipedia editors will >> talk about Wikimedia's mission and orient the audience to Wikipedia's >> structures and community policies. Medical researchers and other >> staff >> members of the NIH will learn how to contribute to Wikipedia's >> content >> and engage with other Wikipedians to further increase Wikipedia's >> quality and credibility. >> >> We're incredibly excited about this opportunity for increasing the >> quality of health-related information on Wikipedia. I believe this >> partnership has a huge potential and we all are very excited about >> the >> upcoming event. >> >> See also our press release: >> >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/NIH_and_WMF_announce_first_WP_Academy_July_2009 >> >> Thanks, >> Frank >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> foundation-l >> > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
The statute supports that as well, providing a private right of action and civil remedy. It's not entirely that cut and dry (there are certain restrictions that must be met) but yeah, it appears that in some cases TOS violations can be illegal. -Dan On Jun 22, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 14:35, Ray Saintonge > wrote: >> Brian wrote: >>> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS. >>> >>> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is >>> nothing we >>> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to >>> do - they >>> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are >>> akin to >>> their intellectual property and are unwilling to give them away. >>> >>> >> How is violating Google's ToS against the law? > > The verdict in _United States v. Lori Drew_ appears to set a precedent > that violating a site's Terms of Service is a violation of the > Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It's not a very strong precedent, but > it's still there. > > -- > Mark > [[en:User:Carnildo]] > > ___ > 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
