Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
So on the wine project, the issue is we would have to target wines bottled before 1900, just to be quite sure there's no copyright issue on the wine bottles labels. Having said that, you could imagine the price we'd have to pay to run that project. On Twitter, last night, another wikimedian had a great idea. He suggested that we would buy a mass spectrometer so we could digitaly record the smell of the cheeses. Everyone could enjoy how smelly some are -- Christophe On 25 November 2014 at 09:59, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: And next the wine project? Count me in. On 24 November 2014 at 18:22, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Good news everyone, Cheese articles are gonna get improved! As french, it was dreadful for us to see so few illustrations of cheese on Wikipedia. This is about to change. A group of french Wikimedians, lead by Pierre-Yves Beaudouin, designed a project to photograph many cheeses, up to 200 for the moment. This project is perticular as we aim to have it found through a french crowdfunding platform, KissKissBankBank. Of course Wikimedia France could have funded it itself, but we wanted to use the project as a way to get the larger audience aware of their ability to contribute and to give a fun image of contributing. The project in few words iss follow : * 10 cheeses per session * During the session the cheeses are photographed and their articles improved * During the sessions experimented wikimedian would train new editors * At every session every participant would enjoy eating good cheese too If you want to read more, or even contribute, about the project you can go on KissKissBankBank : http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/projects/wikicheese If you have any questions, please feel free to shoot them on or off list. All the best, -- Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Jon Davies - Consultant to Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years, to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. I would say that it's *out of context*. I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical is the best example to follow. How to follow? Amical operates in a different context than other chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic. Ok, nothing to say but: a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue within the community b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal questions (may be the opposite) d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good solution to improve the community participation to the projects. What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the biggest projects. It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity and the Global South but without paying attention that the historical communities and to the usual editors. May be I am wrong but there are more online projects becoming attractive for the potential editors and the change of the target is not producing a real impact. So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is not beneficial. regards Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com ha scritto: Hi Patrik, During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of the organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC for the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic planning, budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of room for improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including the WMF.) If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the largest organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to deliver impact to the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many instances it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to develop and execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making recommendations about unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific project or program, often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an organizations capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated projects.) Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight Member FDC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more or less on its maximum I think. Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a full business plan - review) Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced group of people are handling out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works pretty well. Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup. That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that arise from this non-professional system, including a dedicated ombudsperson for the case(s). I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the incoherentness of reviews. Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to the system imo. Balazs 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years, to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. I would say that it's *out of context*. I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical is the best example to follow. How to follow? Amical operates in a different context than other chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic. Ok, nothing to say but: a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue within the community b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal questions (may be the opposite) d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good solution to improve the community participation to the projects. What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the biggest projects. It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity and the Global South but without paying attention that the historical communities and to the usual editors. May be I am wrong but there are more online projects becoming attractive for the potential editors and the change of the target is not producing a real impact. So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is not beneficial. regards Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com ha scritto: Hi Patrik, During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of the organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC for the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic planning, budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of room for improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including the WMF.) If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the largest organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to deliver impact to the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many instances it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to develop and execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making recommendations about unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific project or program, often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an organizations capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated projects.) Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight Member FDC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Hi Balazs, I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for Nida Foundation for over 10 years (smaller amounts, but many more projects each round); also for some years I was on the funds board for Interkl@sa program at American-Polish Freedom Foundation. I am currently an advisory board member for the largest scientific center in Poland (and besides regular advisory board duties, consult them on innovation management and strategy). I have experience in consulting on strategy to other NGOs and businesses. I also regularly teach strategic management to MBAs end execs, including programs specifically profiled towards IT and the Internet business. Of course you can always say that it would be better to have someone with more experience, but I believe the principle was that we also need people from within the movement, and able to make a significant time commitment. In any case, I find the statement about little or zero experience seriously unfounded. best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more or less on its maximum I think. Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a full business plan - review) Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced group of people are handling out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works pretty well. Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup. That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that arise from this non-professional system, including a dedicated ombudsperson for the case(s). I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the incoherentness of reviews. Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to the system imo. Balazs 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years, to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. I would say that it's *out of context*. I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical is the best example to follow. How to follow? Amical operates in a different context than other chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic. Ok, nothing to say but: a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue within the community b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal questions (may be the opposite) d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good solution to improve the community participation to the projects. What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the biggest projects. It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity and the Global South but without paying attention that the historical communities and to the usual editors. May be I am wrong but there are more online projects becoming attractive for the potential editors and the change of the target is not producing a real impact. So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is not beneficial. regards Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com ha scritto: Hi Patrik, During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of the organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC for the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic planning, budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of room for improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables. WMF is one stakeholders. The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on. In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF is *one of the stakeholders*. And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in order to attract stakeholders. Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest budget. regards On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hi Balazs, I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more or less on its maximum I think. Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a full business plan - review) Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced group of people are handling out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works pretty well. Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup. That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that arise from this non-professional system, including a dedicated ombudsperson for the case(s). I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the incoherentness of reviews. Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to the system imo. Balazs 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years, to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. I would say that it's *out of context*. I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical is the best example to follow. How to follow? Amical operates in a different context than other chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic. Ok, nothing to say but: a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue within the community b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal questions (may be the opposite) d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good solution to improve the community participation to the projects. What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the biggest projects. It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity and the Global South but without paying attention that the historical communities and to the usual editors. May be I am wrong but there are more online projects becoming attractive for the potential editors and the change of the target is not
[Wikimedia-l] Chairpersons mailing list
Hey, Few months ago, during Wikimania in London, we held the first meeting of all (or at least aim to be..) the chapters' Chairpersons together with Lila. We will be happy to see this forum continue to work together, allowing the Chairpersons to share ideas and discuses about their role and issues that should be discussed within limited people (like board or ED relationships). And I wanted to thanks Anasuya for the idea and the support on that! I asked to open an internal mailing list for the forum, and tried to add all the chairpersons whom I been in touch before the Wikimania meeting. If by mistake I missed someone, I'll be happy if he can contact me off-list. The subscriptions is open only to the chairperson of recognized chapters or thematic organizations. *Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement. I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation). Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts. best, dj pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables. WMF is one stakeholders. The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on. In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF is *one of the stakeholders*. And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in order to attract stakeholders. Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest budget. regards On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hi Balazs, I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more or less on its maximum I think. Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a full business plan - review) Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced group of people are handling out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works pretty well. Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup. That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that arise from this non-professional system, including a dedicated ombudsperson for the case(s). I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the incoherentness of reviews. Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to the system imo. Balazs 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years, to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. I would say that it's *out of context*. I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical is the best example to follow. How to follow? Amical operates in a different context than other chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic. Ok, nothing to say but: a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue within the community b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal questions (may be the opposite) d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. I would not speak in the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?
Interestingly I've just received a fundraising email localised to the UK which doesn't offer any opportunity to give by direct debit. This is the main form of regular giving in the UK, and the alternative that is offered (regular gifts via credit card) is generally deprecated as it gives the donor far less control over their money. I know the WMF used to have a solution to handle more payment methods - I wonder if that's been discontinued for reasons of cost/simplicity? (The email also doesn't appear to include any of the learning about the right ask amounts to ask for monthly gifts in the UK from the 2011 campaign but that might be my fault for not publishing those results ;) ) On 22 Nov 2014 07:42, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: It seems everyone agrees it is an important method (although I'm not 100% sure that the US based people running the fundraiser fully comprehend - I am assuming this is the case), but there seems to be some reason why the WMF chooses to not make this option easily available. A reason they choose not to disclose, but to be fuzzy about. I'm very sorry about this, and as Liam says, this fits in a trend with the Russian people no longer being allowed to donate. Maybe the two are connected, but this is all speculation. I'm sorry to see these steps back from the more open attitude there was a few years back. It feels very much that we are, as a community, being fed canned press answers. But then, maybe there's a real need for that and there's a huge legal threat to making it easy to donate through bank transfer that cannot be disclosed... Best, Lodewijk On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: To amplify: Paying (business) taxes in The Netherlands now pretty much requires electronic payment to an IBAN Account; a.k.a. it is (now) the standard, default, baseline way to make payments at all. After registering a business, the very next action is to open an (IBAN) account. All extant dutch accounts that predate IBAN have been converted to IBAN. All administration systems (must(!)) support IBAN. If you want to do business in the Netherlands, you need to support IBAN. Note that many (most?) dutch citizens do not have credit cards or paypal accounts. Further, IBAN is standardized throughout the euro-zone. iDEAL is nice to have and important. IBAN is a minimal baseline requirement. sincerely, Kim On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:42:31PM +0100, Walter Vermeir wrote: Op 17-11-14 om 20:28 schreef Lodewijk: you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer (using an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page Historically the structure of bank account numbers are very different from country to country. And making transfers from one bank account to an other bank account, especially internationally, are/where complex and expensive. There is still a lot of room of improvement but nevertheless it has never been so easy and cheap to do international transfers as now. The IBAN system - International Bank Account Number - is active in a fair chunk of the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number#Adoption Inside the EURO-zone , 19 countries, ?? 337 million Europeans , people can make a bank transfer to an EURO-zone IBAN bank account without additional expenses. Many more outside the EURO-zone can easy make international payments to an IBAN bank account. That is not free ... but paypal is certainly not free also. The costs are just deducted from your donation. The WMF has always has been a huge fan of payment by credit cards. Understandable, the WMF is founded in the country of the Credit card. But that can make you blind to the fact that other people are used to total other payment systems. A couple of years ago I discovered that there where still people using cheques in France. That came as a total surprise to me. I remember my dad using cheques 30 years ago. I never came in to contact with a cheque since then. To my knowledge cheques where long gone. History. Extinct. But ... when you have the financial business concept of the WMF - when you need money beg for it - the donation channel should be tailer made for the specific common way of payment used by the person who is so good to be willing to make an donation. Walter ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
Two other people are doing this right now also! Is this a coincidence? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2056561545/tonythetiger-wikipedian-for-the-world-tttwftw https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1990377981/creative-commons-camera yours, On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: So on the wine project, the issue is we would have to target wines bottled before 1900, just to be quite sure there's no copyright issue on the wine bottles labels. Having said that, you could imagine the price we'd have to pay to run that project. On Twitter, last night, another wikimedian had a great idea. He suggested that we would buy a mass spectrometer so we could digitaly record the smell of the cheeses. Everyone could enjoy how smelly some are -- Christophe On 25 November 2014 at 09:59, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: And next the wine project? Count me in. On 24 November 2014 at 18:22, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Good news everyone, Cheese articles are gonna get improved! As french, it was dreadful for us to see so few illustrations of cheese on Wikipedia. This is about to change. A group of french Wikimedians, lead by Pierre-Yves Beaudouin, designed a project to photograph many cheeses, up to 200 for the moment. This project is perticular as we aim to have it found through a french crowdfunding platform, KissKissBankBank. Of course Wikimedia France could have funded it itself, but we wanted to use the project as a way to get the larger audience aware of their ability to contribute and to give a fun image of contributing. The project in few words iss follow : * 10 cheeses per session * During the session the cheeses are photographed and their articles improved * During the sessions experimented wikimedian would train new editors * At every session every participant would enjoy eating good cheese too If you want to read more, or even contribute, about the project you can go on KissKissBankBank : http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/projects/wikicheese If you have any questions, please feel free to shoot them on or off list. All the best, -- Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Jon Davies - Consultant to Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 l...@bluerasberry.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
2014-11-25 12:05 GMT+01:00 Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu: Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced group of people are handling out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works pretty well. I must admit that I am little sad to say that the FDC is not that special but what we are doing is called participatory grantmaking and it's hardly new. Participatory grantmaking is a practice that has been around for a while now (since the 1970s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_grantmaking Of course, not all of us have the astounding background of Dariusz (Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's (cit.)) but that's acceptable in the framework of participatory grantmaking. We are also participating with all the other WMF committees volunteers (IEG, GAC) in a research program from Lafayette Practice (http://www.thelafayettepractice.com/), I think that Anasuya Sengupta [WMF's Director of Grantmaking[*]] can give more info about this if needed. Of course any feedback is appreciated and process feedback even more. On a somewhat related note, I want also to take the occasion to point out that WMF said that they will devise a community review process for their annual plan. This mechanism has still to be devised, it will probably not be the FDC[+]. C [*] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grantmaking_and_Programs [+] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Advisory_Group/Recommendations/2014/ED_Response#WMF.E2.80.99s_involvement_as_a_fundseeker_in_the_FDC_process ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
It is a coincidence^^ Thx for the links. Pyb Le 2014-11-25 14:14, Lane Rasberry a écrit : Two other people are doing this right now also! Is this a coincidence? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2056561545/tonythetiger-wikipedian-for-the-world-tttwftw [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1990377981/creative-commons-camera [2] yours, On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: So on the wine project, the issue is we would have to target wines bottled before 1900, just to be quite sure there's no copyright issue on the wine bottles labels. Having said that, you could imagine the price we'd have to pay to run that project. On Twitter, last night, another wikimedian had a great idea. He suggested that we would buy a mass spectrometer so we could digitaly record the smell of the cheeses. Everyone could enjoy how smelly some are -- Christophe On 25 November 2014 at 09:59, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: And next the wine project? Count me in. On 24 November 2014 at 18:22, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Good news everyone, Cheese articles are gonna get improved! As french, it was dreadful for us to see so few illustrations of cheese on Wikipedia. This is about to change. A group of french Wikimedians, lead by Pierre-Yves Beaudouin, designed a project to photograph many cheeses, up to 200 for the moment. This project is perticular as we aim to have it found through a french crowdfunding platform, KissKissBankBank. Of course Wikimedia France could have funded it itself, but we wanted to use the project as a way to get the larger audience aware of their ability to contribute and to give a fun image of contributing. The project in few words iss follow : * 10 cheeses per session * During the session the cheeses are photographed and their articles improved * During the sessions experimented wikimedian would train new editors * At every session every participant would enjoy eating good cheese too If you want to read more, or even contribute, about the project you can go on KissKissBankBank : http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/projects/wikicheese [3] If you have any questions, please feel free to shoot them on or off list. All the best, -- Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [4] Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l [5], mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Jon Davies - Consultant to Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ [6] and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [4] Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l [5], mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [4] Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l [5], mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Pierre-Yves Beaudouin Tél. : + 33 (0)6 84 11 44 69 Links: -- [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2056561545/tonythetiger-wikipedian-for-the-world-tttwftw [2] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1990377981/creative-commons-camera [3] http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/projects/wikicheese [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l [6] http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) best, dj On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, initial was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. Vince 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement. I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation). Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts. best, dj pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables. WMF is one stakeholders. The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on. In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF is *one of the stakeholders*. And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in order to attract stakeholders. Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest budget. regards On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hi Balazs, I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more or less on its maximum I think. Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a full business plan - review) Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced group of people are handling out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works pretty well. Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup. That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that arise from this non-professional system, including a dedicated ombudsperson for the case(s). I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the incoherentness of reviews. Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to the system imo. Balazs 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years, to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. I would say that it's *out of context*. I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical is the best example to follow. How to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
2014-11-25 13:49 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. That's a very good point. but we can rely that entities stay true on their bylaws that, having been examined as part of the affiliation process should all point towards the movement mission (in their own contextualized wa). In other words this is when AffComm work kicks in (in the long term). C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile. How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak Vince 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC. If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements. Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people with experience from chapter boards, for instance. best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all. If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them. To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :) Vince 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) best, dj On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, initial was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. Vince 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement. I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation). Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts. best, dj pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables. WMF is one stakeholders. The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on. In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF is *one of the stakeholders*. And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in order to attract stakeholders. Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest budget. regards On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hi Balazs, I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more or less on its maximum I think. Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Balazs, if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the following sentence: He also has served on the Funds Dissemination Committee of the English Teaching program (aimed at improving language skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the last 8+ years. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile. How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak Vince 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC. If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements. Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people with experience from chapter boards, for instance. best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all. If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them. To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :) Vince 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) best, dj On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, initial was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. Vince 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement. I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation). Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts. best, dj pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables. WMF is one stakeholders. The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on. In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF is *one of the stakeholders*. And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in order to attract stakeholders. Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest budget. regards On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hi Balazs, I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC members' zero
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
We started an English version of the campaign [1] -- Pyb Links: -- [1] http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/wikicheese ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit. The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle - the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start discussing the people. Thanks! Lodewijk On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Balazs, if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the following sentence: He also has served on the Funds Dissemination Committee of the English Teaching program (aimed at improving language skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the last 8+ years. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile. How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak Vince 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC. If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements. Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people with experience from chapter boards, for instance. best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all. If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them. To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :) Vince 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) best, dj On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, initial was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. Vince 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement. I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation). Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts. best, dj pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables. WMF is one stakeholders. The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on. In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF is *one of the stakeholders*. And WMF
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Excellently put Lodewijk. In an attempt to answer your question: I would like to ask for clarification the expectations of raising funds externally. In previous years, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it has been emphasised that the 'money raised in a country' should be considered independent of 'money spent in that country'. This is a principle that everyone (I think) agrees with, on the basis that a country might be donor-poor but activity-rich or vice versa. Taken at its purest, this principle implies that the annual plans submitted should be independent of the amount of money [potentially] available to be accessed locally. Separately, there is also the fact that several of the responses from the FDC emphasise that some Chapters should push for more external funding sources - to diversify their income streams and to lessen the burden on the global Wikimedia budget. And that these Chapters' Annual Plan budgets should take more into account those funds. Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area. A corollary question is, if a chapter does receive external funding (from whatever source), how should that money be accounted for in the Annual Plan? If it is in a separate budget that is outside FDC-scrutiny that would seem to be a way of avoiding accountability to the movement as a whole... On the other hand, should the FDC have jurisdiction over money that is not derived from the WMF APG program? It's possible that extensive explanations for these questions exists already and I just didn't know where to find it - sorry if that's the case :-) Also, I'm not asking the FDC to answer these questions now (or saying which option I prefer), I'm wanting to know if the WMF Board of Trustees has given clear instructions to the FDC/Chapters in this area. Sincerely, -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 25 November 2014 at 18:38, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit. The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle - the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start discussing the people. Thanks! Lodewijk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Excellently put Lodewijk. In an attempt to answer your question: I would like to ask for clarification the expectations of raising funds externally. In previous years, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it has been emphasised that the 'money raised in a country' should be considered independent of 'money spent in that country'. This is a principle that everyone (I think) agrees with, on the basis that a country might be donor-poor but activity-rich or vice versa. Taken at its purest, this principle implies that the annual plans submitted should be independent of the amount of money [potentially] available to be accessed locally. Separately, there is also the fact that several of the responses from the FDC emphasise that some Chapters should push for more external funding sources - to diversify their income streams and to lessen the burden on the global Wikimedia budget. And that these Chapters' Annual Plan budgets should take more into account those funds. Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area. Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
As Nathan I see no contradiction. I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but not for WMF to get that money for general use) But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use Anders Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area. Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Supporting individual English teachers in rural Poland and reviewing hundred thousand to million dollar grants from all around the World are barely comparable to each other if they can be at all, but definitely can be counted as relevant experience. Anyways I meant to give an overall positive critic, I am sorry that you focused on the negative parts only and took it personal, it was never my intention. Vince 2014-11-25 18:38 GMT+01:00, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit. The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle - the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start discussing the people. Thanks! Lodewijk On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Balazs, if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the following sentence: He also has served on the Funds Dissemination Committee of the English Teaching program (aimed at improving language skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the last 8+ years. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile. How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak Vince 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC. If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements. Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people with experience from chapter boards, for instance. best, dariusz pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all. If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them. To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :) Vince 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) best, dj On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, initial was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. Vince 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement. I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation). Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts. best, dj pundit On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means to justify that to the stakeholders. The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds. This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot). I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: those individuals or
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Liam, Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory I understand that the potential contradiction relies on the fact that if fundraising and spending of chapters are really fully separated, their applications to the FDC should not be assessed by taking into account their fundraising abilities? In principle, this is so. While the FDC does suggest to some chapters that they could intensify their efforts in diversifying funds (for the benefit of the whole movement), it is a soft recommendation. None of the chapters had their recommended allocation lowered mainly because of poor fundraising results. I guess it is a matter of reasonable effort - if there sometimes seems to be a low hanging fruit, it is reasonable to ask if it can be reached. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: Supporting individual English teachers in rural Poland and reviewing hundred thousand to million dollar grants from all around the World are barely comparable to each other if they can be at all, but definitely can be counted as relevant experience. Anyways I meant to give an overall positive critic, and I apologize for upkeeping this thread, it was silly. Thus I am not going to continue with budgetary details, or reply to this final comment :) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
On 25 November 2014 at 20:45, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. Hi Nathan, I know I'm not being particularly clear - even to myself :-) But let me try: In particular, I noted this sentence from the FDC recommendations for WM-Netherlands: The FDC recognizes that there has been inconsistency in the messages given to chapters and other entities about fundraising diversity. Nonetheless, the FDC thinks that Wikimedia Nederland is in a position to seek other sources of funding. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Highlights_8 I also note this sentence which is directed to WM-UK: The FDC urges Wikimedia UK to carefully consider its plans to hire additional fundraising staff, and to articulate a clear strategy for how that position will benefit the organization and the movement. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Summary_11 These points imply to me that the the FDC believes it has a duty to oversee the manner in which funds are raised by the Chapters from external sources, not just how the money that is requested from the WMF is used. (of course these points are linked if the WMF-derived money is being used to pay staff who will focus on external fundraising...) This is not a critique of the FDC, but it leaves me a bit confused about the 'rules of the game' about external funding, for organisations applying for APG funds. On 25 November 2014 at 21:53, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Liam, Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory I understand that the potential contradiction relies on the fact that if fundraising and spending of chapters are really fully separated, their applications to the FDC should not be assessed by taking into account their fundraising abilities? In principle, this is so. While the FDC does suggest to some chapters that they could intensify their efforts in diversifying funds (for the benefit of the whole movement), it is a soft recommendation. None of the chapters had their recommended allocation lowered mainly because of poor fundraising results. I guess it is a matter of reasonable effort - if there sometimes seems to be a low hanging fruit, it is reasonable to ask if it can be reached. Thank you Dariusz - yes, this is a good way of summarising it. -Liam ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
2014-11-25 18:09 GMT-03:00 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com: These points imply to me that the the FDC believes it has a duty to oversee the manner in which funds are raised by the Chapters from external sources, not just how the money that is requested from the WMF is used. (of course these points are linked if the WMF-derived money is being used to pay staff who will focus on external fundraising...) This is not a critique of the FDC, but it leaves me a bit confused about the 'rules of the game' about external funding, for organisations applying for APG funds. I personally do not think the FDC has a duty to oversee external funding made by chapters in general, but obviously is something we should analyze in the case of those chapters applying to APG. As it has been said in this thread, APGs are unrestricted funds and, in all cases (with the exception of WMDE), are the largest source of funds for the grantees, so it is important for the FDC to see how the proposed budget will be funded besides APG and see if this is a realistic and correct proposal. Given external funds usually are not 100% secured, there is a possibility that the chapter will have to rearrange their programs, cutting some of those to fund more important ones in case an external source is missed, using for example the unrestricted funds from the APG. That is one reason why we want to see in general the way the chapter works and not only the programs expected to be funded by APG funds. In addition, not all chapters really described the way each program was supposed to be funded and what could happen if external funding does not work as it was supposed to. Some exceptions were WM-EE and WM-SE; they were very clear regarding this and their budgets gave us a lot of detail, helping us a lot to understand their proposal.[1] Besides this, it is important for grantees to understand that the growth they had experienced in the past years is not sustainable entirely by APGs, especially in the case of the largest chapters. We expect that as a chapter grows, it can build capacity to search for more funds, be more efficient on their expenditure and in general reduce its reliance on movement funds. Funding staff for fundraising is possible through APG if the grantee can give a good reasoning for this (as with any other staff increase). I would expect chapters to start working on this with their current staff and propose a dedicated member once there are real possibilities for external funding. In some countries, there will be very few opportunities for funds and the investment on a fundraising staff member may not be positive. At the end, it will all depend on the context. I hope this explanation helps :) [1] For example, see WM-EE budget: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Eesti/Annual_budgets/2015 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two because the skills involved are different. I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the chapters can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point). We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply equally or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM NB Wikidata is underfunded On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: As Nathan I see no contradiction. I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but not for WMF to get that money for general use) But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use Anders Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area. Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
