On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede :
> > It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
> fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of
> "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
>
> Indeed, and it may not b
Discussion report: Administrators, vanishing, and ponies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Discussion_report
Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Special_repor
> On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
>>
>> Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use
>> Wikimedia marks ?
>> Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
As Andre says, Affiliates need permission to use the WMF marks on
their own sites / banners, or
There are a number of interesting relies. As they too undoubtedly
intended the material to be available, (I'm one of them & at any rate
I did,) I include them here; if additional come in, I shall post
them.
operalala 1 day ago
In your 2011 edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
instead of provid
Hello all,
It’s with great pleasure that I’m announcing that Terrence (Terry) Chay is
joining the Wikimedia Foundation as Director of Features Engineering.
Terry comes to us from Automattic, where he helped improve the
WordPress.com user experience by implementing an A/B testing framework,
improv
Dear all,
I went through the lists and collated a bunch of questions that have been
asked (without identifying who has asked these).
I have put them on the talk page of the MR letter, so that we can
systematically start considering and addressing them. This is the link:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/
Hi, everyone!
Alec, I share your enthusiasm about wikimedia revolution, and I also have
been nagging my chapter with the idea of the shared wikivalues. I ask
everyone to take this in mind as a lighthouse in the gales. Governance is
not an easy way, and for sure we're going to make some big mistake
I agree with the idea to ask Chapters, but since the Board is pushing this
to be read at 10 March. I have no freaking Idea why that date is so
Important - I know you people don't wanna mess with my birthday the day
before ;) - but we all can wait a bit more to do things rights, rather than
do it in
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede :
> It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
> fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of
> "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came
out more or less
Hi Ziko and Lodewijk,
Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved in
these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came out of
the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve these
recommendations.
It is clear to me that the
That's exactly what I did.
Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk :
> agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its
> impact rather than its source.
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: htt
Hi Ziko,
if you're saying that the proposals should not get 'extra points' because
they happen to come from a working group that did not function optimally
(far from that - although it was definitely not useless either) I totally
agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider i
Lodewijk,
I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it
extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them
- think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It
must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged
"roughness". And in
On 14/02/12 02:39, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
>
> By Timothy Messer-Kruse
>
[...]
> My improvement lasted five minutes before a Wiki-cop scolded me, "I
> hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies,
> such as verifiability and undue
Indeed Yaroslav
I agree these are concerns and it is likely no solution will ever be
perfect.
I think the best way to limit (not avoid) such concerns is to make the
process as transparent as possible. This one is quite a challenge since
one of the key point in the process is that the name of
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a
first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow
that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in
the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution
> From: Florence Devouard
>
> > Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible.
> > First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries,
> later
> > they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter
> for
> > Andorra, later they propose
17 matches
Mail list logo
