I liked the idea of clearly indicating what the current amount of
funds would go for and what the next major funding milestones are.
(Sorry, whoever it was who posted this initially as an alternative to
things becoming "urgent" - I'd cite your post but I didn't find it
upon looking again!)
The thi
So, thanks to everyone for talking me into donating - that was fun. I
felt good about it. But now I'm being asked for more money? I'm not
so into that, in fact, it's a bit off-putting. No doubt it's a
standard fundraising technique but frankly it doesn't seem like the
wiki way. Maybe the unite
Ah, see, straight dealing like this is what it takes to get me to donate :)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
___
foundation-l mailing
> I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is
> understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding
> that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's
> independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and
> its projects.
Furthermo
> I hope that it will be possible to make this small change from a p into an m.
Yeah, it's not like it's even in a graphic, it's a text page -- easy
fix. But I'd suggest adding " Foundation" in there too. As it
stands presently it looks like the site was hacked.
___
Hi Robert:
You touched on a lot of interesting topics in that email! I'll
highlight the ones that most jumped out at me.
> I realize that e-book readers and some other similar things are starting
> to show up on some college campuses, but the physical book is still very
> much common even in thi
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> If PediaPress's software is open-source the Foundation surely wouldn't
> need to buy it. This is what I'm finding confusing, and that's partly
> because of my lack of technical knowledge. But as I see it Wikimedia
> has developers, paid and unpa
> I'd love for the LaTeX export to be made available as open source as
> well. Heiko and I have talked a few times about this -- obviously it's
> understandable why they prefer to at least keep some "secret sauce".
> Policy-wise, what's key to us is that everything running on the WMF
> side is open
> Wikimedia policy is to use only free software, at least on the
> "customer-facing" side. That includes the PDF-generation process,
> which runs on our servers AFAIK.
>
> Requiring this from sites we (in essence) link to seems excessive. We
> link to Google Maps via an intermediate page, similar t
What people seem to have been stepping around in this thread so far is
the fact that Pediapress's software chain includes some components
that they have NOT released as open source. There seems to be ongoing
confusion about this. If there was an open source toolchain for doing
what Pediapress cur
Nice summary/overview...
> 10% news/events/media coverage
> 10% pointless digressions
> 10% snarky comments
> 10% trolling
> 10% uncritical discussion of WMF
> 50% sharp criticism
I wonder what percentage of the sharp criticism gets dealt with?
Would it make sense to keep track of that statistic?
Hi SJ:
I've been thinking about your note. Maybe "programmes" would
be a better word than "policies". I hope here to put my note in a
pro-active frame. In fact there are lots of things that we could do,
but here is where it would be nice to know more about who "we"
are!
You and I already discu
Hi All:
I'm still riding the wave of enjoyment I caught at
Wikimania in Gdansk, thanks for that :).
One of the topics that came up in my conversations
there had to do with Wikimedia's policies surrounding
free software.
It is my view that a good portion of 'the sum of all
knowledge' is currently
13 matches
Mail list logo
