The name is misleading and confusing as best. This very conversation
proves it. In consequence, the naming is bad.
"On behalf of the community", but do you have even community approval?
I'd like to read the strategical report of your consulting firm about
this move, just to know on what predictions
Le 18/01/2012 10:14, Alec Meta a écrit :
>> Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the «maximum
>> possible amount of money»?
>> Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more?
> Because we don't expect to be JUST Wikipedia forever. We have a lot
> of innovation ahead of us.
Le 18/01/2012 05:25, Ting Chen a écrit :
> Hello dear community,
>
> the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation passed the following
> resolution with seven approves and three abstains:
>
>
> [...]
> * Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising
> activities must aim to
Le 31/12/2011 15:03, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
> Being honest when raising funds in incredibly important.
Probably a misunderstanding.
People getting paid to raise money who only care about getting money,
that's the kind of professionals we need.
Putting them in charge of communication and money re
e no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
>
> If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under
> spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
>
> Tom
>
> On 22 May 2011 16:19, Pronoein wr
Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit :
> we have no
> "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.
Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate
decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundatio
Le 05/04/2011 07:41, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
> That's the problem with grants, i guess. If a rich - and certainly
> well-meaning - foundation invests money in a Big Project that doesn't
> hurt free knowledge, but doesn't advance it too much either, it's not
> a big problem by itself.
Indeed! Vect
A reminder about motivation, purpose and money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Le 11/03/2011 00:57, Mani Pande a écrit :
>
>
>> MzMcBride wrote:
>
>> "After having looked at the survey content, the survey software, and the
>> survey format (particularly the length), I have very, very low confidence
>> that anything of value will come from this (beyond lessons of what not t
Le 11/03/2011 04:13, David Gerard a écrit :
> On 11 March 2011 06:32, Pronoein wrote:
>
>> Hello Keegan. I think this list is not about siding and throwing
>> moqueries at each other. We should respect what each one believes.
>
>
> To have an opinion respected,it h
Hello Keegan. I think this list is not about siding and throwing
moqueries at each other. We should respect what each one believes.
Le 11/03/2011 03:29, Keegan Peterzell a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Mani Pande wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> MzMcBride wrote:
>>
>>> "After having looked at the
Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
> On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
>> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
>> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
> Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conduct
Le 01/03/2011 17:26, David Gerard a écrit :
> On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
>> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
>> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a v
Le 27/02/2011 00:56, David Gerard a écrit :
> [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/le/lost_purposes/ - a great blog recently
> recommended by Sue.
Indeed. I'm currently reading it, I'm agreeing so far to interesting
reflexions.
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
Le 26/02/2011 11:11, David Gerard a écrit :
> Volunteers are not employees, and can't be
> expected to just shut up and work. It really, really deeply doesn't
> work like that.
I don't follow you. Are you answering to something or somebody in
particular? Was there a disagreement about that? Did an
Hello,
I'm wondering one thing about this new policy applied with some haste,
but I could'nt find the answer - the discussion really lengthy -:
how will discrimation between those who shared their identity and those
who declined will be avoided?
Or maybe I should ask if we should discriminate the
Le 19/02/2011 10:14, David Gerard a écrit :
> On 19 February 2011 12:56, Teofilo wrote:
>> 2011/2/19 David Gerard :
>
>>> Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making
>>> blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's
>>> understanding of them.
>
>> In my vie
Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
> Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out
> that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say "assume good
> faith"? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street.
Not at all. I'm say
Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
> ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although
> I'm going to dis
Welcome Geoff!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
20 matches
Mail list logo
