[Foundation-l] Fundraising Community Appeal

Hello Wikimedia contributors, The fundraising team has been testing new messages over the past couple of months and we're happy to report we've found some new voices that will allow us to move away from our dependence on Jimmy to appeal to readers for donations. This year we want the fundraiser to

Re: [Foundation-l] Project-specific donation landing page

Hi Tempodivalse, Right now we're not running our weekly testing on different projects but during the fundraiser, we do use the sitename instead of putting "Wikipedia" banners on the top of other projects. A few people have suggested some project specific messages, and I think that's great. If you

Re: [Foundation-l] Project-specific donation landing page

Tempo D. Valse wrote: > I've noticed that the "Donate" link in all English Wikimedia projects' > sidebars goes to the following page: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate The one in the sidebar? It says "Donate to Wikipedia" on the English Wikipedia and currently links to

[Foundation-l] Steward Election Results

All, Election is complete and we have 8 new stewards elected . The following candidates were approved as stewards: - Axpde -

Re: [Foundation-l] all images on/off function

I use Outlook Express. But, for some reason, some posts do not seem to be rendered as they should be, whether they are attachments or otherwise. Maybe that's my fault, but to be honest, I have other stuff to be concerned about, e.g. my current work on Commons, so with the best will in the world

Re: [Foundation-l] all images on/off function

Church's email worked fine for me. The only attachment was a signature, the content itself was in normal email form. What mail client are you using? On Oct 7, 2011 12:27 AM, "Phil Nash" wrote: > church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > > I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, an

Re: [Foundation-l] all images on/off function

church.of.emacs.ml wrote: I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, and (b) if you have anything worthwhile to say, and are competent at interacting on a mailing list, I see no reason why you should not be able to hit the "reply" button in your mail program, and it

[Foundation-l] Stewards Elections closing in 45 minutes

All, The election closes in less than an hour. If anyone still needs to vote, please head over to metawiki and cast your votes. Regards, Jyothis. http://www.Jyothis.net My Malayalam Wikipedia page Metawiki page

Re: [Foundation-l] all images on/off function

Hi, On 09/13/2011 08:06 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > Is that a new feature or was it always there and I just didn't > notice it? It's a fairly new feature of the mobile re-write. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MobileFrontend/status > If it's a new feature, was it enabled as a result these recent > di

[Foundation-l] Fwd: board meeting agenda

Forwarding to foundation-l. Comments are welcome on the agenda talk page; suggestions for future meetings welcome here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Board_meetings -- Forwarded message -- From: phoebe ayers Date: Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:15 AM Subject: [Internal-l]

[Foundation-l] Project-specific donation landing page

Greetings all, I've noticed that the "Donate" link in all English Wikimedia projects' sidebars goes to the following page: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate This is a fine landing page for Wikipedia readers, but if someone from Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc, sees this, he could become conf

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

On 06/10/2011, Lodewijk wrote: > The WIki is back online already. But the village pump page was (at least for > the last day) available. > > Lodewijk > > No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 18:17, teun spaans > escreveu: > >> As I understand, the change has only been proposed. >> >> Possibly another inter

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

The WIki is back online already. But the village pump page was (at least for the last day) available. Lodewijk No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 18:17, teun spaans escreveu: > As I understand, the change has only been proposed. > > Possibly another interesting issue will develop: the italian wiki was

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

As I understand, the change has only been proposed. Possibly another interesting issue will develop: the italian wiki was discontinued by a short vote or poll. I suppose the most democratric way to terminate it would be another vote or poll. How are they gonna have that poll if they locked themsel

Re: [Foundation-l] Italian Wikipedia protest - retrospective legislation?

WereSpielChequers, 05/10/2011 13:51: > Webpages are only permanent if someone keeps hosting them. I can see that > if the Italian Wikipedia was back up someone in Italy might send a note to > the WMF asking them to comply with this Italian law. But if an editor is no > longer active on the site it

Re: [Foundation-l] The Wikimedia Foundation seems to want to repudiate Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, and make text contributors liable for every kind of complaint

I replied at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#Terms_of_use.2316._Indemnity:_You_don.27t_mean_to_nullify_the_Creative_Commons_terms.2C_do_you_.3F I think if the Italian Wikipedians fought against an Italian bill of law trying to make them liable for a large series of complaints, th

Re: [Foundation-l] Im*ge f*lt*r poll on fr:wp

Did you mean * ** ** **:**? -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 17:38, David Gerard wrote: > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Installation_d%27un_Filtre_d%27image > > > - d. > > ___ > foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF blog post on Italian Wikipedia

emijrp, 05/10/2011 17:23: > When people reuse content in other websites/blogs/etc, they have to copy the > article text and link to Italian Wikipedia where you can check the entire > history and authors. That is how attribution is given. It is explained here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Re: [Foundation-l] The Wikimedia Foundation seems to want to repudiate Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, and make text contributors liable for every kind of complaint

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Teofilo wrote: > I want to say very clearly that without the provisions included under > Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, it will be very difficult for > volunteer contributors to consider working for a project that makes > them liable to all kinds of complaints. For

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31: > On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml >> Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter? >> >> Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to >> do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

I mean Wikipedia (or websites like Wikipedia) specific. Italian text will have to do - Google translate does miracles :) I think what would be really great is a set of statements/suggestions, so not just by one expert. For one, the Rodotà statement was not exactly what I was looking for at some po

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

Thomas Goldammer, 05/10/2011 09:21: > 2011/10/5 Samuel Klein: >> >> CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area: >> http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq > > interesting: > > Q. If a charity incorporated in this country has an Australian (for > example) affiliate that lobbies (according t

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24: > No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) > escreveu: > >> This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree >> that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other >> websites; and the community had discussed and assess

[Foundation-l] The Wikimedia Foundation seems to want to repudiate Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, and make text contributors liable for every kind of complaint

I want to say very clearly that without the provisions included under Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, it will be very difficult for volunteer contributors to consider working for a project that makes them liable to all kinds of complaints. For that reason, the proposed "Indemnity" clause of the pro

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) escreveu: > This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree > that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other > websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of > the proposed law

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: It.wikipedia will be turned on

> > It seems that there is the majority to put it.wikipedia.org alive again in > the following hours. > * IMPORTANT * it.wikipedia.org has been restored, and we use a large sitenotice. Anyway, the amendment is not yet approved and there is the possibility (not so low) that it'll be rejected. We'

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

Andreas Kolbe, 05/10/2011 12:49: > Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the > proposed law, > the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on > the page (which > actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and >

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 6 October 2011 12:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could > be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a > discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine > accounts... Personally s

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

Ray Saintonge, 05/10/2011 10:46: > If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to > get a legal order from a US court to identify the users. But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki ther

[Foundation-l] Fwd: It.wikipedia will be turned on

Sorry for the cross-posting, but I write here what I have already submitted to internal. It seems that there is the majority to put it.wikipedia.org alive again in the following hours. The law has not been approved yet but the committee, who has in charge the proposal, has accepted some amendment

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Stanton Foundation Awards Wikimedia $3.6 Million for Technology Improvements

Bod Notbod, 06/10/2011 11:45: > Does this mean we can now finally have categorised watchlists? It's an > idea that people have generally been supportive of when I have > mentioned it on wiki but never gets any actual action. I'd program it > myself if I could. Put simply, imagine you are interested

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

> > Not so easy. Yesterday an amendment has been officially proposed, not > approved. It will be discussed into the parliament camera, then into the > parliament senate. Only if both will accept it without modifications it'll > be valid. > > Also, the government may ask for trust at the parliament

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jalo wrote: > Maybe your countries are more slender If there is one thing that cannot be said of the denizens of the nation where Wikipedia is hosted, it is that they are slender. And we Brits will be similarly rotund by the end of the decade. Bodnotbod

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Stanton Foundation Awards Wikimedia $3.6 Million for Technology Improvements

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Jay Walsh wrote: > The purpose of the grant is to fund > major investments in the technology infrastructure that supports Wikipedia > and its sister projects, Excellent. Does this mean we can now finally have categorised watchlists? It's an idea that people have

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 00:23: > I'm still a little bit confused how this will impact Wikipedia, though. > > The law seems to be clear in identifying the website owner as the person to > contact; which is a US not-for-profit. Which law? And which law speaks of website owner? Anyone can be asked

[Foundation-l] Social support for It.Wiki: half a million people expressing support in less than 24 hours

FYI, meanwhile more than *HALF A MILLION* Italian citizens, in less than *24 hours*, expressed strong support for it.wiki in the social network/blogsphere: I think this is an incredible result for the Wiki movement and philosophy (for Italy, but also at the international level). It is the most mass

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

Andreas Kolbe, 06/10/2011 02:11: > Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 > fine in the > proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). > Yet that > €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include >

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Stanton Foundation Awards Wikimedia $3.6 Million for Technology Improvements

Wow, that's great! On 10/06/2011 05:13 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Is the grant restricted or unrestricted? (Is there a copy of the > agreement somewhere?) I'm not sure if it's any more restricted than the summary says: >> The purpose of the grant is to fund major investments in the >> technology i

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Stanton Foundation Awards Wikimedia $3.6 Million for Technology Improvements

MZMcBride, 06/10/2011 05:13: > Is the grant restricted or unrestricted? (Is there a copy of the agreement > somewhere?) The WMF said very clearly that they're not accepting restricted grants any longer, so I assumed it's unrestricted. Nemo ___ foundat

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded > "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against > an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like > that. I think it is very cogently only

Re: [Foundation-l] "almost wikipedia" talk

Thanks for sharing! Michael 2011/10/5 phoebe ayers > Of interest: > Benjamin Mako Hill is giving a talk at the Berkman Center on October > 11, entitled: "Almost Wikipedia: What Eight Collaborative Encyclopedia > Projects Reveal About Mechanisms of Collective Action" > > It will be webcast: > htt

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

We'd be nice as well to have it back asap. And we are prompt to do so. But, please, take into account that the article you linked is actually totally not accurate, not to say that is just wrong: at the moment the law is unapproved, the controversial piece of the law is absolutely unchanged. What we

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?

> > > http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law > > > > It'd be nice to have Italian Wikipedia back up as people are waking up > > in Italy. > > > > /me claps > > Good show, Italy. Knowledge is free. > > -- > ~Keegan > Not so easy. Yesterday an amendment has been officially proposed, not approved. It