Please don't assume I disagree with all objections that could possibly be made,
just because I disagree that the one's which had been presented so far are very
significant. I sincerely hope this program is more decentralized then any other
program being run right now. It seems to be in rather
It seems to me that there has been a quite a variety of results to booster
activities, and that the poorest results have come from random educators who
decide to make a Wikipedia class project without consulting any veteran
editors rather than from people more thoroughly exposed to the sausage
Hi Birgitte
I greatly respect your opinion, and rarely found myself disagreeing with
you. I didn't want to reply in-line because I believe majority of your
opinions stem from the wisdom of the crowd model, which might best describe
the wiki model and the assumption that, it will continue
On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage n...@thebabbages.com wrote:
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products
free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers
On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 8/9/11 3:47 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
It seems to me that these changes are about making chapters more into
franchises. Which I find to be exactly backwards.
It would be, if that's what it were about. But I can say
On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Redefining the chapters
who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's payment
processors is straight-up insulting.
Whoa, please slow down!
No one has said anything like that, and it isn't how the term is
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't care what people spoke of, nor of what they desire, nor what their
agenda is. I never supposed that people were conspiring to fail. I care
what effect
On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe will
make
On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:39 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Decentralization isn't some random choice that somehow was attached to this
movement; it is the only way the program functions at all. WMF
On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Nor does off-wiki collaboration require that a formal entity be in
existence. Off-wiki activities -- whether social meetups or more formal
outreach efforts to GLAM institutions and elsewhere -- are no less
effective
On Aug 9, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything
that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the
stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split
I have realized that WMF seems to seriously misunderstand the role of chapters.
I say this as someone who has always had a somewhat conservative view of
chapters to begin with. But underneath the current rift is a serious
disconnect between WMF professionals and how this whole program actually
On Aug 6, 2011, at 2:41 AM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Hello Birgitte,
Thank you for these comments and edits/suggestions. [all: please also
post suggestions on Meta. most people are not subscribed to this
list.]
This Board letter was published on short notice.
On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello MZM, thanks for taking a start at new pages to illustrate the
discussion on Meta.
MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
.
Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
is outside of this list's scope is insane.
On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:45 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
.
People bring up the forum because this (foundation-l) is the central list
for the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
is outside of this list's scope is insane. Using internal-l as a
Sorry if this a duplicate but I didn't receive it even though my later email
came through
Begin forwarded message:
From: birgitte...@yahoo.com
Date: August 5, 2011 7:07:02 PM CDT
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board
On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
==Design principles==*
Our design principles for improving the fundraising model are:
* We are deeply committed to decentralized pursuit of our mission and to
supporting the long-term sustainability of chapters
Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail a
notarized statement that I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so
I may edit as Bar? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely
endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so
On Jul 9, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/9 birgitte...@yahoo.com
Snip
Having a corpus with some depth on Wikisource will open up a much different
reading experience than an index of PDFs, even though the words all match.
Just look at what is
On Jul 7, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/7 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de
On de.wikisource.org they scan every page of the original text, upload
the scan on Commons and show the scan on the right part of every page as
an image. It is even obligatory
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look
better.
I think Michael's point here
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/24/2011 01:58 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
It also wasn't an easy decision to make. The question came down to
this one: do we necessarily refuse someone as a candidate solely
because they were proposed by a funder?
As a
Yes I eventually found that app. And it is much superior to editing from the
browser. But it doesn't support ProofreadPage extension. Still between the app
and browser it is definitely workable with two edits. My concern is much more
that the reading/navigation experience seems to be driving
You are third person to respond as if my email was about me personally looking
for help editing. And the second to snip my writing out of all context. Steven
seemed to actually get what my concern was. You can hate whatever you like, or
dislike as the case may be. It is not going to help WMF
I forgot to say there are not website bugs, so much as browser bugs. Or just
an extremely different interface. Perhaps a great mobile browser could be
built to effectively kill apps. But is not something website changes could
address. IMHO
BirgitteSB
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2011, at
I am getting ready do to a little traveling. It works out that traveling light
is going to be my best bet for various reasons. As I don't want to carry around
the weight of a laptop; I have purchased a little closer to the cutting edge
than I generally do. In setting up my iPad this is what
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't you edit it with the normal web browser in the ipad?
___
I could edit from a browser, but it was rather difficult. That difficulty
wasn't really important, but
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 6:26 PM
30 matches
Mail list logo
