I'm curious (and not arguing it is the case) why due diligence here does not
involve e-mailing every person who has ever made an edit and has their
e-mail address in their profile.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Mike & I have made some updates to the Q&A today:
>
> http://
The one thing he seems to have missed so far is the sub-communities of
people on individual groups of topics.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> I do.
>
> 2009/1/7 Milos Rancic :
>> A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1]. I didn't read
>> it as it is too la
I do.
2009/1/7 Milos Rancic :
> A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1]. I didn't read
> it as it is too late now (I just heard friend's description of the
> article), but I think that there is no sense to wait tomorrow for
> sharing it. The issue is important enough to be analyzed
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
> need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
> reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
> volunteers like yourself),
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Mathias Schindler
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>> I challenge you to find 1% as many negative blog posts regarding the
>> fundraiser as there are positive comments left by donors.
>
> Apart from that interesting debate between you and ge
2009/1/8 Erik Moeller :
> I'd appreciate thoughts & comments.
>
Working from bottom to top:
Most of the answer to "If the migration occurs, will it change what
image licenses are allowed to be used on WMF projects?" is unhelpful.
Historically the foundation has not been involved in determining th
Mike & I have made some updates to the Q&A today:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers
Please let me know or edit the page if you feel further clarifications
and answers are needed. Otherwise I'll prepare a translation request,
probably on Friday.
Meanwhile, I'm
2009/1/7 Dan Rosenthal :
> Anecdotally, I thought it was about the same, but I did notice a LOT
> more questioning of what the money was going to. Like you, just
> impressions, no facts to back it up.
Perhaps so - an absolute increase of scrutiny is certainly to be
expected as the overall number o
A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1]. I didn't read
it as it is too late now (I just heard friend's description of the
article), but I think that there is no sense to wait tomorrow for
sharing it. The issue is important enough to be analyzed.
[1] - http://www.alleyinsider.com/20
geni writes:
>>> It is also a opportunity to further annoy our readers. IT's pretty
>>> clear they don't like it
>>
>> and you know this because...?
>
> Because I run daily searches of blogs for the term wikipedia. Because
> complaints have turned up all over the place on wikipedia. Because or
>
Anecdotally, I thought it was about the same, but I did notice a LOT
more questioning of what the money was going to. Like you, just
impressions, no facts to back it up.
-Dan
On Jan 7, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Brian
> wrote:
>
>> I chall
geni writes:
>> Having no banners and no servers to serve the artuicles are even
>> worse. Having payed the dangeld to get rid of them, I think most are
>> happy being acknowledged for the fact.
> You miss the point. The banners are not fundraising any more (unless
> you collapse them)
Most o
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller :
> geni writes:
>
>> 2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller :
>>> Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
>>> opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
>>> this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
>>> asse
geni writes:
> 2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller :
>> Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
>> opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
>> this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
>> assesment. And since you haven't mentioned
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller :
> Whiners has always been quicker to the keyboard, then those without
> opinions either way. That's a human trait, i suppose. Failing to take
> this fact into the equation effectively invalidates your
> assesment. And since you haven't mentioned it by now, I will not
Supposing every blog post that mentioned 'wikipedia' and 'fundraiser' was
negative, there would be 69,978.
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=wikipedia+fundraiser
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mathias Schindler <
mathias.schind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Bri
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Brian wrote:
> I challenge you to find 1% as many negative blog posts regarding the
> fundraiser as there are positive comments left by donors.
Apart from that interesting debate between you and geni, I had the
personal impression that this year's fundraising dri
geni writes:
> Because I run daily searches of blogs for the term
> wikipedia. Because complaints have turned up all over the place on
> wikipedia. Because or editors who also have to read the thing have
> gone so far as to have a gadget to get rid of it. Because adblock
> which targets banner ad
2009/1/7 Brian :
> I think your point was clear, but maybe not. Please restate it for me more
> clearly.
You appear to be under the impression I'm objecting to the donation
banner ads. I'm not. I am however suggesting that while the donation
banner ads are a necessary evil (heh one of the complain
I think your point was clear, but maybe not. Please restate it for me more
clearly.
Because I run daily searches of blogs for the term wikipedia. Because
complaints have turned up all over the place on wikipedia. Because or
editors who also have to read the thing have gone so far as to have a
gadg
2009/1/7 Brian :
> Sorry Geni but you are totally wrong. Each year the Foundation asks for more
> money than the year before, and each year the citizens of the world give it.
>
>
> I challenge you to find 1% as many negative blog posts regarding the
> fundraiser as there are positive comments left
Sorry Geni but you are totally wrong. Each year the Foundation asks for more
money than the year before, and each year the citizens of the world give it.
I challenge you to find 1% as many negative blog posts regarding the
fundraiser as there are positive comments left by donors.
On Wed, Jan 7,
It seems that the pictures from German Federal Archive have been detected by
the search engine of Wikimedia Commons. So now you can find more easily
pictures that have not been categorized by now. Every picture has an
original description in German.
To find pictures from the history of your countr
2009/1/7 Nathan :
> It would also, as I mentioned, provide the very valuable service of
> reinforcing with the public that the Wikimedia Foundation is charitable
> organization that depends on donations for all of its operations. That fact
> is implied in the very nature of a fundraising drive, but
(Sorry for not threading my replies).
I realise (not being completely dense) that some of these large
organizations don't solicit donations, but they might be willing to co-brand
as a sort of "in-kind" donation to the WMF. My intent was more to name well
known organizations to illustrate the point
Nathan wrote:
> Personally I appreciate that the foundation is working to make fundraising a
> year round project, particularly with respect to large donations from
> individuals and other foundations. I wonder if we can't work more closely
> with other, more established charitable foundations thou
I think you guys did a great job, all in all. We can't and shouldn't expect
it to be perfect, and obviously you can't please everyone. I'm happy to say
that the disgruntlement I described in my "strong negative reaction" thread
at the beginning of the fundraiser did not prevent a very successful ou
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Comet styles wrote:
>
>> Well basically, some of the thing from the list which is really
>> important and needs to be sorted out soon includes elected members
>> from the chapters to the board,
>>
> Actually, this is being discussed
2009/1/7 Michael Bimmler :
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/7 Erik Moeller :
>> > A quick update: the "Thank You" banner is currently scheduled to stay
>> > up until January 9, 4 PM PST. We're keeping it up a while longer in
>> > part because it's the first work week after
I don't know. Everyone knows the fastest way to remove a begathon is through
generous donations. ;)
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/7 Erik Moeller :
> > A quick update: the "Thank You" banner is currently scheduled to stay
> > up until January 9, 4 PM PST. We
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/7 Erik Moeller :
> > A quick update: the "Thank You" banner is currently scheduled to stay
> > up until January 9, 4 PM PST. We're keeping it up a while longer in
> > part because it's the first work week after the holidays for many
> > people,
2009/1/7 Erik Moeller :
> A quick update: the "Thank You" banner is currently scheduled to stay
> up until January 9, 4 PM PST. We're keeping it up a while longer in
> part because it's the first work week after the holidays for many
> people, and in part because it's an opportunity for chapters to
Hoi,
I think the foundation did great with the last fundraiser. When we
*need *something
like 6 million dollar we should ask for it and it is legitimate to ask for
it. It is really sad that people do not realise how much our aims suffer
from a lack of investment. We need to do better, we can do bet
Who is responsible for the code behind the fundraiser? I have a few
proposals he or she may like. Its too late for this fundraiser but would
help on the future ones
Additionally I think the foundation should set a donation goal for the end
of the year. Not as a begathon like the 6 mil one but some
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Comet styles wrote:
> Well basically, some of the thing from the list which is really
> important and needs to be sorted out soon includes elected members
> from the chapters to the board,
Actually, this is being discussed by the chapters themselves at this very
Well basically, some of the thing from the list which is really
important and needs to be sorted out soon includes elected members
from the chapters to the board, the ombudsman com expansion and/or
probably increasing their job tasks and probably appointing those
people that are "Actually" around a
36 matches
Mail list logo
