Re: [Foundation-l] A university partner for Wikimania

On 03/25/12 12:34 PM, James Heilman wrote: Some academics need conferences to be sponsored by / associated with an academic institution to receive time off and funding to attend conferences. Is this something that Wikimania has ever attempted? Ie. having Wikimania hosted by the local chapter plus

Re: [Foundation-l] User talk templates

On 03/22/12 1:37 AM, En Pine wrote: First, has anyone thought about automatically adding a welcome message to the user’s talk page when they first register, not only for EN but also for Commons, Simple, and other projects? Currently we require a human to do this, which means that lots of peopl

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

On 03/14/12 2:29 PM, Joan Goma wrote: Catalan Wikipedia has about 10 times more pageviews than them. If they use a free license and use a wiki then their professionals can copy our best articles and review them and we can copy their content. 7,8% of their page-views go there from Catalan Wikiped

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

On 03/13/12 3:58 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:54:48 +, Thomas Dalton wrote: I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it is I'm remembering? No, I think there were only like three b

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

On 03/09/12 10:00 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote: Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful. &quo

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On 03/12/12 10:11 AM, Nathan wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Marc Riddellwrote: on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a sta

Re: [Foundation-l] Will Beback

On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote: Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime editors to account for abuses they may perpetuat

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsi

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 03/08/12 3:23 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 8 March 2012 11:01, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard wrote: We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the assumed background. Academia and mu

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote: Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful. "Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily defined. In many otherwise non-controve

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard wrote: We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's asser

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing

On 02/25/12 10:30 AM, Castelo wrote: On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote: Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when it comes to illustrations in articles. Those illustrations are mainly in Commons, with exception of the images in fair use, but linked in the articl

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing

On 02/23/12 5:48 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: But the most difficult ennoying point is simply that most corp archives appear to be a mess. Because companies are bought and sold, information is lost on the way. Because of poor communication between departments. Because staff come and go. And bec

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing

On 02/22/12 11:40 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The latter of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because opinion, viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. The only real difficulty exists

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing

On 02/26/12 2:58 PM, M. Williamson wrote: Ziko, you raise the subject of "illiterates"... I feel that it is blatant discrimination to assert that the only way illiterates can create sources worthy of citation on Wikipedia is either by becoming literate, or by being interviewed by a literate perso

Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia, (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote: There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the humanities or social sciences or even some of the sciences would know the intensity with which the highest level schola

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

On 02/23/12 11:41 AM, Sarah wrote: If the oral citations (audio and video) were used as an adjunct to more traditional sources, I think there would be no problem at all. On the Holocaust page, we used to highlight a quote (now removed) from a witness who talked to the BBC at the time of the Brit

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

On 02/19/12 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: Fred Bauder writes: I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just one example, but there are

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

On 02/19/12 12:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie wrote: Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement,

Re: [Foundation-l] New project: WikiMake - library of free 3D models?

On 02/09/12 10:39 AM, Chris Lee wrote: The largest problem I see with this is offering a 3D modelling software that is free and (somewhat) easy to use. I know some exist, but they are not nearly as friendly as Solidworks or Pro e. secondly, we would need to offer a free viewer, so that they could

Re: [Foundation-l] ACTA analysis?

On 01/24/12 8:13 PM, Geoff Brigham wrote: Hi Kim, I will be happy to ask one of our junior attorney interns, Stephen, to do a short 1-2 page summary of ACTA. This may take about a week. BTW Stephen is a Wikipedian who has been providing significant and excellent support to me during the SOPA p

Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

e issue. Much of what is on the talk page will be unnecessarily long-winded, but that's a reasonable price for openness. Ray On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote: On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote: The name 'talk page'

Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote: On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote: The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so on. En

Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

On 01/24/12 6:50 AM, FT2 wrote: Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that dead ends for so many reasons. That usually begins to fail when the proponent discovers that he might have to pay t

Re: [Foundation-l] Canadian consultation on Trans Pacific

On 01/16/12 8:10 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 16 January 2012 14:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: >>> WMIT is interested, too, because the board has decided to move the >>> semi-free and PD-Italy content hosted on biblioteca.wikimedia.it to >

Re: [Foundation-l] Duolingo, potential way of getting good quality translations?

On 01/15/12 5:19 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > Hi all, > I just found this today, from New Scientist: "learn a language, translate > the web" > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328476.200-learn-a-language-translate-the-web.html > It's an article about a startup (from the same fellow who did ReCapt

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2013 - Request for Bids and Jury nominations

On 11/23/11 12:47 PM, Thomas Goldammer wrote: > It could be possible that a Wikimedia chapter is chosen to organize a > Wikimania, and they can then decide where to go (within their > country). Of course, the local chapter is always involved in > organizing it, anyway. So instead of a city bid one

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

Thank you Liam for using the term, "organisational roles," instead of the more pretentious, "movement roles." I find the whole thread disturbing. I am and have always been a strong supporter of the autonomy of both projects and chapters, and from that vantage point it is difficult to see this i

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/04/11 1:26 AM, David Richfield wrote: >>> My opinion (and it's just an opinion) is that it's really hard to give >>> undue weight to WP:V. >> >> "WP:V" is not equal to verifiability itself. You may have adminitis. >> >> I think verifiability carries a lot of weight. WP:V is different from >>

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/04/11 12:44 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> On 11/03/11 6:27 AM, Fae wrote: >>> On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard wrote: >>>> Backlogs as a concern translate directly to "newbies are inher

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/03/11 5:59 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 3 November 2011 12:53, Nathan wrote: >> I wish we didn't always have to dispense with this tired argument that >> making editing easier will inundate the projects with idiots. Easy and >> open editing is the ethos that built the whole project. > Yes. A

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/03/11 5:32 AM, Tom Morris wrote: > On Thursday, November 3, 2011, David Gerard wrote: >> I suggest that backlogs don't matter nearly as much as involvement and >> drawing new people in. >> >> Backlogs as a concern translate directly to "newbies are inherently a > problem." > > > I'd disagree

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/03/11 6:27 AM, Fae wrote: > On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard wrote: >> Backlogs as a concern translate directly to "newbies are inherently a >> problem." > I don't get the point being made here, I would have thought that backlogs > are a good way to attract new editors into teamworking

Re: [Foundation-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/03/11 2:49 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 3 November 2011 09:31, Ray Saintonge wrote: >> Also can the expression "citation needed" be changed to something that >> is more inviting to newbies, like "Please add citation"? > We may be late for that - "c

Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment

On 10/31/11 1:31 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > > For me, the most common reason why an "edit" click is not followed by a > "save" is because I end up not having the time to complete the work, or > the edit I had in mind becomes more complicated than I thought > (sometimes the latter partly explains the

Re: [Foundation-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/02/11 2:11 PM, Nathan wrote: > A button or link that says "Add a reference?" that brings up a box > with several lines, labelled "URL" "Source" "Author" "Date". Click > "Ok" and the reference is inserted, no ref syntax or other ugly > interface necessary. > > Put it automatically at the end o

Re: [Foundation-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/02/11 11:27 PM, David Richfield wrote: > A tool which pops up asking for a URL, author and date would be a rich > source of bad references. We should rather be looking at ways to get > references to books and journal articles. Web references should be > the exception rather than the rule, b

Re: [Foundation-l] Newbie recruitment: referencing

On 11/02/11 2:32 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 2 November 2011 21:28, Nathan wrote: >> To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF > YES. We need this horribly urgently. > > It should also pop up when someone clicks on a "[citation needed]" tag > - that's a blue link tha

Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment

On 11/01/11 4:43 PM, Béria Lima wrote: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki ) > > right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;) > The newbie still has to find out from somewhere that he should

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged > to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious > opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia > Foundation is looking for all sorts

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 11/01/11 5:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +, Fae wrote: >>> Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission >> That's a slightly odd interpretation, >> specifically >> includes effective dissem

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/30/11 6:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > PS: As i wrote some month ago: "Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of > the talk page, buried by the annoyed user. Great and important feature > we haz now!" > Please refer to the Eric Bogle song, "He's nobody's moggy now." Ray _

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/30/11 5:57 PM, Mateus Nobre wrote: > Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia > equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, > at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in > editions and talk should red

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/30/11 9:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris wrote: >> (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, >> *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when >> someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/30/11 3:21 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> Along the same line of reasoning, I see >> that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any >> template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin. >

Re: [Foundation-l] Canadia Supreme Court Finds in Favour of Hyperlinker

On 10/19/11 12:48 PM, Risker wrote: > Today, the Canadian Supreme Court found that an online writer who used > external hyperlinks could not be held liable for the contents of the > hyperlinked materials: > > http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362--supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-i

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial Content vs Only-Image-Filter

On 10/16/11 2:53 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > In the last weeks i hold myself back and watched over the comments at > multiple places to see what is the current development. At first i have > to point out that I'm very disappointed by the current progress. Sue > called for a more general discussion

Re: [Foundation-l] The copyright question: What would Gandhi do?

On 10/12/11 11:39 AM, Achal Prabhala wrote: > A friend of mine in South Africa, Isabel Hofmeyr, passed on this image > of the first page of the first edition of the English translation of > Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj" - or "Indian Home Rule" in translation. (Hind > Swaraj was the blueprint for India's f

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 10/10/11 4:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > So that leaves you with much broader categorization, I guess? "Violence", > "Gore", etc. And then that leaves you with people debating which images > belong to which broad category? > > The Gore Family of Tennessee?? :-P Ray ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 10/09/11 9:58 AM, Risker wrote: > On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: >> Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40: >>> The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to >>> the community or the chapters or to any other external agent. >> I find this response a bit odd. ;

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 10/09/11 8:00 AM, Julius Redzinski wrote: > That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the > community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so > caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the > projects. If the fil

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 10/09/11 7:12 AM, Ting Chen wrote: > the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the > feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both > logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we > decided to not ammend the original resolu

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 10/06/11 6:33 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > 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 a

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] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 10/04/11 3:14 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > WereSpielChequers, 04/10/2011 23:46: >> If someone tried to use this law >> to >> force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the >> freeze, then surely that would be retrospective legislation? > I don't see why. Web pages are

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

are not the only group in Italy opposing this, so there is plenty of room for common cause. If the law passes, there will certainly be others willing to take this matter through the courts. Ray > On 5 October 2011 09:46, Ray Saintonge wrote: >> On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's > sufficient to edit from the Italian country. > > I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I > publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian edito

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

American Law of Copyright". /Marquette > Intellectual Property Law Review/ *6* (1): 132. > > 2. Elkin-Koren, Niva (2001). "Of Scientific Claims and Proprietary > Rights: Lessons from the Dead Sea Scrolls", /Houston Law Review/ *38* > (2): 458, 460. > > > On 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva > wrote: >> In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. >> Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. > Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. > > W

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 09/30/11 10:59 AM, Sue Gardner wrote: > On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote: >>> Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about >>> in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating t

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 09/30/11 11:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner wrote: >> That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen >> to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into >> mine. > Most importantly, you are a manger :P > > The tro

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 09/30/11 9:41 AM, Theo10011 wrote: >> I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be >> educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find >> "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom, >> watching MTV, and stealing my sisters c

Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)

On 09/30/11 3:34 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > One final remark: I couldn't help but laugh a little when I read somewhere > that we are the experts, and we are making decisions for our readers - and > that these readers should have to take that whole complete story, because > what else is the use of having

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

There's an important point in what you say, though it is difficult to avoid sarcasm when feeling a Google spider creeping up one's back. In many of these cases there is the legal analysis and there is the pragmatic analysis They do not bear identical results. The legal analysis could conceiva

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote: > If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any > copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 90, Issue 121

On 09/21/11 2:37 AM, Craig Franklin wrote: > I'd caution against putting too much faith in those raw numbers without a > clear understanding of what they mean. They can make sense comparing > different language editions of the same project, but comparing different > projects is apples and oranges.

Re: [Foundation-l] Minor projects withering and dying? Really?

On 09/20/11 10:11 PM, とある白い猫 wrote: > Certain projects are bound to loose active contributors. Projects like > Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikispecies or even Wiktionary do not have the same > growth curve as a general purpose encyclopedia. These tools have serious > competition as well. Statistically l

Re: [Foundation-l] Minor projects withering and dying? Really?

On 09/13/11 6:11 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > > I am not a Wictionary contributor but I was never able to understand why > we have Wictionaries in different language, though a big part of those seem > to be translations on other languages, and they overlap. Would it not be > advantageous to hav

Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked

On 09/12/11 3:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > The only other project in a similar situation is > Wikispecies, where any data on species at least conceptually is > welcome in a Wikipedia article on the topic. > This all makes Wikispecies the perfect fork. Its contents largely overlap the relevant Wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

On 09/17/11 8:52 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning wrote: >> My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down >> de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and >> all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

On 09/17/11 11:08 AM, Fajro wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Sarah Stierch > wrote: >> I'm always interested in demographics and culture specifics when it comes to >> surveys, etc. > We should have a WikiSurveys project. > WikiMonkey??? Ray _

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Loves Monuments (Was: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats)

On 09/12/11 10:05 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:04, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> Also, if there was no group let us give a random example - in Macedonia - >> who wanted to organize the contest, still it would be a good idea to open a >> category for WLM in Macedonia, just t

Re: [Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)

On 09/16/11 12:38 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, emijrp wrote: >> I think that the phrase meaning refered to Wikipedia is "the sum of all >> human knowledge which is notable and encyclopedic". >> >> Not ALL, ALL, ALL human knowledge. MySpace discarded. > When you look

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/15/11 8:50 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:43, Andrew Lih wrote: >> That's a erroneous comparison -- those same WMF employees keep the >> servers running for all of Wikimedia. It's not specific to >> Wikipedia's community fundamentals for encyclopedia writing. > "runn

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 9:12 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:03, Theo10011 wrote: >> I think Wikinews needs to find its own identity first. There is no way it >> can compete with large news sites you are thinking of, but there are plenty >> of other ways it can have its own identity. In t

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 1:44 PM, Sarah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote: >> I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research >> requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is not >> a new one, it has been tried many times and doesn't work. > The

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 5:01 PM, Heather Ford wrote: > On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Theo10011 wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote: >>> >>> Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about >>> the Second World War con

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/15/11 11:51 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: >> This is an interesting point. In some ways Wikipedia has so fetishised >> reliability that there isn't much room for oral histories and memoirs. >> We can contact and c

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 11:10 AM, Sarah wrote: > > There are current affairs issues that would continue to be of > interest. I've always felt this was an area Wikipedia and Wikinews > should pursue: video interviews by Wikipedians of interesting people. > Not necessarily celebrities or news types -- interviews

Re: [Foundation-l] Forkability, its problems and our problems

On 09/11/11 5:13 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> 2011/8/17 David Richfield: >>> You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of >>> notability? >> Notability is not an absolute criteria. >> There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with >> different criterias. > What is

Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardener, Wikipedia's leading editor - wikileaks

On 09/06/11 3:29 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Funny, These lines remind us that a lot of the "intelligence" work is > nothing more than reading the newspaper. No much real "leaking", one > might say. > > Obviously, those writers love the word "leading" to make their readers > understand the importanc

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia creator Jimmy Walker - wikileaks

On 09/03/11 1:45 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled > wrong! > > http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html > > Hilarious. > > Treat the name as coded. If the cable put Wikipedia's creator in danger you can feel safe that they

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/03/11 3:03 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge wrote: >> The organization itself is not the objective. > +1 > > What things could WMF do to make itself obsolete as quickly as > possible, in as many individual areas as possible? > &g

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/03/11 4:06 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > > Just a bit of different perspective: I could make a list of chapters, > besides WM RS, which would be happy to get a representative from WMF > (but from any other bigger chapter, as well) in their Board, if that > means that the representative would real

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/02/11 12:11 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: > ... > > We are facing rather severe challenges right now. Let's say it straight, > Wikimedia Foundation is simply trying to absorb/control the chapters as > is they were simple bureaux of the WMF locally and chapters kind of > disagree with WMF idea

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/02/11 12:25 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: >>> I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority >>> for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/02/11 1:02 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > Meanwhile, on the subject of mutual board appointments between chapters > and the foundation, I figured I'd chime in as I helped push the idea for > chapters to select foundation board members in the first place. For one > thing, there's a very different p

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/02/11 5:28 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > Just to add to what Illario has said, I think it's important to remember > that most (if not all) chapters are run via a democratic system where the > entire board or committee is elected by its members. Appointing WMF members > to boards would obviousl

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

On 09/02/11 1:59 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > On 9/2/2011 1:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote: >>> *If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach >>> might be to designate "observers" who are not given authority but merely sit >>> in with a chapter board. That's assuming that the chap

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/30/11 4:35 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days > ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time. > > I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment. > This would help. Ray

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/29/11 3:51 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > > What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program > of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program > grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is > their problem. > > What would WMF do: >

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I > understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives > a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism > laws and trade bans (unless a

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote: >>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. >> Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear ho

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/28/11 4:34 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote: >> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting >> like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters? > Because that's its effect: "The entire system of chapters, except > WMDE, is hereby recentr

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/28/11 4:38 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote: >>> More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total >>> fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapter

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/28/11 2:47 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > Theo writes: >> Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability >> standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible >> than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure >> you,

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 wrote: >> Hi Risker >> >> I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The >> Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a >> community member from english wikipedia,

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF

r ways to do it, and your opinion is > welcome. > > Castelo > [[:m:User:Castelobranco]] > Wikimedia Brasil > > Em 27/08/2011 21:00, Ray Saintonge escreveu: >> I find this all very sad. Who are the Brazilian volunteers, and how >> effectively do they represent

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: >>> If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when >>> they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and >>> organization

  1   2   3   4   5   >