So will a new CFO be recruited or will that position remain unfilled, like what
happened to the Volunteer Coordinator position?
-
Abbas Mahmood
t | +254722215101
f | www.facebook.com/abbasjnr
s | abbasjnr
Wikimedia Kenya Member
"Imagine a world in w
Well, it is nice that our editors are not getting paid $100,000 a year to
write from the perspective of whoever is paying them. There is a
connection between well-paid writing and editing and control of content.
Wealthy, or powerful, people don't usually put out big money for the
publishing of mate
me gustaria, que me escriban en español ya que el ingles lo entiendo muy poco
gracias...
> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:04:08 -0500
> From: newyorkb...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian
> gov
I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one
responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of
how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
purely abstract and theoretical terms? Frankly, I have very little idea
wh
I sincerely doubt that poverty is anyones attraction to wikipedia.
--
Dan Rosenthal
Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity.
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote:
>> church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>>> However the main point of m
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote:
> church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
>> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
>> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
>
> There's a fairly easy solution
On 03/06/2011 12:06 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
> included huge business planning components for exactly this
> conversation
There are numbers for estimated expenses: $51M for 2014/2015
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wik
On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
> included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
Which page of the document covers why the foundation needs 188
employees in 2014-2015 to archive i
On 5 March 2011 23:16, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
>> included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
>
>
> Yes, you'd think lots of smart people had n
On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
> included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
Yes, you'd think lots of smart people had not only thought about this
precise question in detail
:: remove Head of Reader Relations hat, and put on "I worked on the
strategic plan" hat ::
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>
> Sure. I'd love to get opinions from more people (perhaps at Wikimania,
> too?)
> The (editing) community should to be comfortable with Wikime
On 5 March 2011 12:29, Teofilo wrote:
> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
On 5 March 2011 20:51, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 March 2011 20:38, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
>> the mission, e.g. allow every human to freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge?
>
>
> Indeed. Although it's quite possible Tobias is correct and WMF can
> achieve the mission with its current budg
Ditto Michael.
You have done a great job the past 3 years and you will be missed.
Renata
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 12:41 PM, Veronique Kessler wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone who is part of the fantastic projects of Wikimedia
> > and keep up the good work!
David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 March 2011 21:15, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> "Defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish"? I think you've
>> highlighted the problem pretty well, right there.
>
> Then please answer my question, and give your plan, working backward
> from the mission statement to th
Hoi,
The Wikimedia Foundation is a five hundred pound gorilla in the field of
building language resources in the languages that have a smaller footprint
on the Internet. I am convinced that for a million Euros we can make sure
that all languages have technically a level playing field.
I have propo
On 5 March 2011 21:48, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> The notion that everyone working on Wikipedia and MediaWiki is a volunteer
> is a fallacy.
> The one thing I have been advocating is that the different languages and
> scripts are performing technically on a level playing field. This is not the
> ca
Hoi,
The notion that everyone working on Wikipedia and MediaWiki is a volunteer
is a fallacy.
The one thing I have been advocating is that the different languages and
scripts are performing technically on a level playing field. This is not the
case and there is a lot that can be achieved with mode
2011/3/5 Casey Brown :
> All translation work is done by volunteers, and who were we to say
> "your language isn't as important, we'd rather you translate into X",
> especially if we hadn't really researched how to make those priority
> lists? If you translate something into Hopi, Kunama, Irish, o
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> A UN-like model, with several major languages, into which important
> Foundation releases *must* be translated, is a realistic solution that
> will enable more people to read them. This, however, also poses the
> danger of perpetuating curre
On 03/05/2011 09:38 PM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> In terms of annoyance, I think we all need to be careful not to
> substitute our own judgment for that of others. Just because you or I
> find banners annoying, it's a far jump to argue that our readers in
> general also found them annoying. In fac
Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, there are so many things we could do if we had the
capacity that would still only be about enabling our communities to write
their Wikipedia in their language. There are development projects that will
not benefit all our projects.
We are still at a stage where there
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> It is my hope that these decisions are data-driven -
> http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size and the
> size of Wikimedia communities speaking a language as well as the
> (in)frequency of bilingualism in those communitie
On 5 March 2011 21:15, MZMcBride wrote:
> "Defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish"? I think you've
> highlighted the problem pretty well, right there.
Then please answer my question, and give your plan, working backward
from the mission statement to the necessary Foundation. Show yo
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> I would venture that growth, or rather size, is defined by what the
> Foundation wants to accomplish and what resources are needed for that. Would
> it be inherently wrong if, for example, WMF were an organization with a
> headcount of 10,000 and a budget of a billion dol
2011/3/5 Amir E. Aharoni :
> will enable more people to read them. This, however, also poses the
> danger of perpetuating current linguistic conflicts. For example,
> translating the WMF blog into Chinese will allow a lot of people who
> know Chinese, but not English, read it, but it will yet again
On 5 March 2011 20:38, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml googlemail.com> wrote:
>> It's hard to tell. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it should be
>> smaller, but it is obvious that we need to think about stop growing at
>> some point (and in my op
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
> Sure. I'd love to get opinions from more people (perhaps at Wikimania,
> too?)
> The (editing) community should to be comfortable with Wikimedia raising
> funds, and if it isn't, we need to find ways so that it will be
> (disabling banne
On 03/05/2011 08:37 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
> I promise that we kept the annoyance of the fundraiser almost to a minimum
> given the amount of money we had to raise.
"we had to raise" sounds absolute, but it is relative to a self-set
(some would say "arbitrary") fundraising goal. This year the goal
2011/3/5 Teofilo :
> The fact that
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Trans#Core_set_of_languages
> is now marked as "obsolete" disappoints me. It seems to mean that
> multilingualism has been rejected.
This is an interesting idea that should be revived.
Put mildly, Wi
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:30 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
>
>
I promise that we kept the annoyance of the fundr
Hi,
We sent information around about Wiki Loves Monuments a few times on several
lists, but it is also available on WIkimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 . It
would be great if you could find enough volunteers to let the Czech Republic
participate!
WereSpielChequers, I believe we either tried or considered all those things
and more.
I think we established continuing donations sometime half-way through the
fundraiser, it mostly depends on the payment intermediaries- Philippe and
Megan really worked hard on getting it. From what I recall, Zack
On 5 March 2011 16:12, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> I appreciate that we may only be able to exclude donors who are logged
> in readers from banner ads. But it is better in my view to say "Yes we
> can do that, but you would have to tell us your username and be
> logged in to avoid ads" than to tel
I appreciate that we may only be able to exclude donors who are logged
in readers from banner ads. But it is better in my view to say "Yes we
can do that, but you would have to tell us your username and be
logged in to avoid ads" than to tell them "Sorry we can't switch off
those ads".
WereSpielC
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> Our banners are getting more annoying every year. We're being more
> aggressive. And we're putting words like "Urgent"[2] on the banners and
> suggest that we haven't paid our bills for 2010 yet[3] (which is at the
> very least mislead
On 5 March 2011 14:19, Neil Harris wrote:
> And also, WMF should make it possible to accept continuing donations as
> a subscription on a monthly basis.
Even better, they should do this already!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Monthly_donations/en
(a link from http://wikimediafoundation.o
On 05/03/11 14:05, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Picking up on the comment by Tobias about less intrusive fundraising,
> I would make sure we are pursuing the following:
>
> 1 Build up a past donors database, communicate with them effectively
> and then as long as they donate annually make sure they a
On 5 March 2011 14:05, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Picking up on the comment by Tobias about less intrusive fundraising,
> I would make sure we are pursuing the following:
>
> 1 Build up a past donors database, communicate with them effectively
> and then as long as they donate annually make sure t
Picking up on the comment by Tobias about less intrusive fundraising,
I would make sure we are pursuing the following:
1 Build up a past donors database, communicate with them effectively
and then as long as they donate annually make sure they aren't
irritated by ads for people who haven't donated
I still think it was a bad thing that the fundraiser crew decided to use
"Sue Gardner director of Wikipedia" in the banners because it raised more
money... A very bad thing because everybody knows here that she isn't the
director for Wikipedia.
___
founda
church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
There's a fairly easy solution: raise less money. It costs about $2
million/year to ke
Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
the copyright law (3)
Are our definition and o
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:BLPLang is not currently
used at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary
This can be construed as the WMF wanting to reach the people of the
world to provide educational contents AND English-dominate them.
The fac
Just a few remarks about the 2015 strategic plan pdf (1)
*http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(a) "You
must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for,
this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly
Perform" is infringed
*The sunflowe
2011/3/4 Birgitte SB :
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message
>> From: Teofilo
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 5:05:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
>>
>> 2011/2/27 Birgitte SB :
>> > No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack t
On 03/05/2011 06:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> So that we're not hypothesizing, I'll say it: I sincerely regret the way I
> put that. I was attempting to say that the choices that we make have real
> world consequences. I used a terrible example to point that out.
Thanks Philippe, I appre
47 matches
Mail list logo
