Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: February 2009
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
MY CURRENT PRIORITIES
1. Hiring interviews: CPO, usability team members
Should someone handle this?
http://www.blackwikipedia.org/
BlackWikipedia is a nonprofit private organization to support WMF, the
Foundation working to maintain and develop the free online
encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly looking for donors as
you can see in the banner top of eac
Hi everyone,
I've appointed two new volunteers into the role of email system team leader
(commonly known as OTRS admin), Daniel Bryant and Mark Wesbeeg.
Daniel is a longtime OTRS agent since March of 2007, an administrator on
en.wikipedia, and a bureaucrat on meta. His unified account name is
U
Biographies of living people bring up legal issues, this matter does not.
From: Delirium
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:05:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> We have
Posting during breaks is a bad idea. I meant kill as in we should stop
discussing this as there is no effective remedy, no mod kill intended.
From: Nathan
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:29:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundatio
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles.
> Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is
> unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up
> ideology. As administrators are appointed/el
On 3/12/09, Nathan wrote:
> That people on this list can't necessarily interfere or overturn the
> de-adminship is a point separate from whether or not it can be discussed
> here. I'm not aware of any hard rules limiting topics of discussion to those
> issues which can readily be addressed by part
Hi all,
Since January there has been a proposal at Meta to facilitate image
restoration. Support has been nearly unanimous.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Restoration.wikimedia.org
To keep the discussion centralized, please post comments or questions to the
proposal talk page.
Many thanks to t
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 3:03 AM
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> > Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for
> anyt
That people on this list can't necessarily interfere or overturn the
de-adminship is a point separate from whether or not it can be discussed
here. I'm not aware of any hard rules limiting topics of discussion to those
issues which can readily be addressed by participants of this forum.
Bringing it
I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out but
find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource. The
locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed from his
position. I see no merit in his claims for the following reason
Resending Sue Gardner's report for January, for the list archive.
I really like to be able to link to it. (Sue, you have a habit of
starting paragraphs with "From" and this bug is still there.)
--
Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
-- Forwa
The people who should be seeing these are on Wikisource, not on this mailing
list. This discussion would be much better served there, as it is fruitless
to continue it here.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> > Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 geni :
> > Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
>
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
>
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dirk
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:58:07 +0800
Subject: A question about Attribution survey and licensing next steps
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
What is your purpose on this statistics? Can you explain it for me? I saw a
news about your ran
Birgitte SB wrote:
> Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like
> this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I
> have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis
> are autonomous on these issues. If
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
>> I have no idea of the en.ws situation, nor do I want to have any idea, but
>> I would like to remark that leaving such things to the community decision
>> is a good idea only if the community itself is big
17 matches
Mail list logo
