Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: December 2008
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
MY CURRENT PRIORITIES
1. The 2008-09 annual fundraising campaign
2. Indi
I concur. On-wiki discussion is the appropriate method of resolution.
- Chris
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Huib Laurens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that you lost your
> adminship but why should people from other projects step in?
> I mean this is someth
That is not the kind of attribution that I have in mind, either. I think
what we need are guidelines as to what links should or should not be saying,
but we need to make it so that people can style it in a manner appropriate
for the work they are using it in.
- Chris
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:27
If there are no specifics instructions as to what a link is except
that it contains the correct url then I can argue that this is
sufficient attribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some Article" rel="nofollow">source
This is not the kind of attribution I have in mind.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1
Whilst I concur that we need to address more of the specifics, I would
disagree that the proposal should incorporate rigidity about the link text
itself. There are various contexts which this will potentially accompany,
and I cannot imagine that there is a one-size-fits-all link title.
- Chris
On
I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page";>label
But the proposed attribution guideline says absolutely nothing about
what the link label should be, and
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Rich media (images, sound,
> video, etc.) that are the result of substantive collaborations between
> at least five people can be credited in the same fashion, but must
> otherwise be attributed in the manner specified by the uploader.
Thi
Erik Moeller wrote:
> b) a link to an
> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
What is the purpose of the wording "and
includes a list a list of all authors," ?
Doesn't that preclude people from applying
the sa
Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could point out any bugs in this
specific language, given i
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>>
>
>
Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to
>>
On Mar 10, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Naoko Komura wrote:
> Hi, Philippe.
>
> Just so that the audience of the list does not lose context of the
> original thread, I would like to reiterate the email thread between
> Michael and myself.
>
> Michael's question was as follows;
> "Purely out of interest: Wa
I'm not sure about the absolute neutrality. It may be an "informal"
name certainly, but the el.wp article is at the title "Proin
Giounkoslaviki Dimokratia tis Makedonias".
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/3/10 Crazy Lover :
> Exactly Marcus, Greeks, when refering FYROM, prefer the name Vardaria (no
>
I asked this same question few time ago, even on IRC and they resent the
mail to the Communications Committee of the WMF. Here's the answer I
got:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> Assuming I understand the question correctly, any currently
>> compatible wiki could adopt the new GFDL/CC harmonized lice
Should a non-WMF project go for dual-licensing? I know this is a Wikimedia
Foundation list, but the clarifications needed here will be helpful to
Wikimedia people as well.
Specifically, I'm trying to understand whether there is a significant
downside to dual-licensing - comments by Erik and others
philippe wrote:
>
> Is there a restriction on the use of the research? I mean, is there
> any reason why the eventual outcomes can't be shared with the other
> projects, or is the propogation of that research confined to the
> english 'pedia? I'm fairly certain I know the answer (knowledge
geni wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge:
>
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
>>>
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic:
> So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>
Common law is very much driven by legal pre
2009/3/10 Michael Bimmler :
> I think it would be a nice example of transparency to publish (ie.
> upload on meta or somewhere) this and similar documents, as long as
> this does not threaten the obtaining of future grants.
I've been thinking about this as well. There is a strong tradition of
conf
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Naoko Komura wrote:
> Hi, Michael.
>
> The restriction is from the Stanton grant.
>
> - Naoko
Speaking of which: Has the WMF considered publishing the document
(contract? terms?) which details the exact cover, purpose, conditions
and obligations of the Stanton gra
On Mar 10, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Naoko Komura wrote:
> Hi, Michael.
>
> The restriction is from the Stanton grant.
>
> - Naoko
Is there a restriction on the use of the research? I mean, is there
any reason why the eventual outcomes can't be shared with the other
projects, or is the propogatio
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Naoko Komura wrote:
>
>> Having said that , we
>> only can allocate the research budget in conducting the usability test
>> for English Wikipedia.
>>
>
> Purely out of interest: Was this a restriction of the Stanton grant or
> was i
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Naoko Komura wrote:
>Having said that , we
> only can allocate the research budget in conducting the usability test
> for English Wikipedia.
Purely out of interest: Was this a restriction of the Stanton grant or
was it a decision by the WMF (usability team)?
Mich
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Delphine Ménard :
>
>> Are there any plans to have usability tests in other languages than
>> English and other "cultures" than "North-American"? It seems to me
>> these two factors actually would play quite a role in the way people
>> interact with the software
Exactly Marcus, Greeks, when refering FYROM, prefer the name Vardaria (no
barbaria). It is neutral (not offensive) word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#Stalemate
The use of Macedonia is reserved for the Greek "nomo"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece)
The use
Anyone can place Pontic wikipedia information in the following row:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias/Table
C.m.l.
From: Zaharias Diakonikolaou
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2009 10:21:21 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l
2009/3/10 Delphine Ménard :
> Are there any plans to have usability tests in other languages than
> English and other "cultures" than "North-American"? It seems to me
> these two factors actually would play quite a role in the way people
> interact with the software and probably should be taken int
A bit late, I'm catching up on emails. :)
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 08:51, Naoko Komura wrote:
> One of the important components of the usability initiative is to
> conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at
> least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluati
2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge :
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>>
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>>> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
>>> similar legal systems have
--- On Mon, 3/9/09, Sue Gardner wrote:
> From: Sue Gardner
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim
> update
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 4:59 PM
> 2009/3/8 Nathan :
> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sue Gardne
Hello,
I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that you lost your
adminship but why should people from other projects step in?
I mean this is something on the en.source not a global thing.
huib
--
Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us
Hello,
I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that you lost your
adminship but why should people from other projects step in?
I mean this is something on the en.source not a global thing.
huib
2009/3/10, Ray Saintonge :
> The behaviour of three people in driving me out of adminship at
> en
The behaviour of three people in driving me out of adminship at
en:wikisource has left me bitterly disappointed with and deeply offended
by the length to which some will go to rid themselves of someone whom
they personally dislike. I cannot but view their efforts as anything
but a series of co
31 matches
Mail list logo
