On 1 September 2011 09:45, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal
>> issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to
>> the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter
>> into another fundraising
On 1 September 2011 16:37, 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 Wiki activities in Brazil are
>> controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think th
On 3 September 2011 11:03, 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?
All sorts of thing
2011/9/3 Béria Lima :
> No one of the videos can go to Wikimedia Commons without a bugzilla request.
That would seem to be a problem. If you are making separate bugzilla
requests for each video, you need to come up with a better process.
Either make one request for all the videos, or make a reques
On 3 September 2011 17:55, Jon Huggett wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2011, at 09:25 , WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
>> Increasing the mutual overlap of boards is a tried and tested way of
>> reducing such tension, it doesn't always work, (in wiki speak it isn't magic
>> pixie dust) and we are in this situatio
On 3 September 2011 19:43, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Indeed. And it is actually a good thing that the WMF board can invite
> new board members also from without the Wikimedia movement. One can
> argue about the numbers, but the principle by itself is good.
I agree. The expert seats are a good thing.
I said from the beginning that this poll was too badly designed for anyone
to be able to draw useful conclusions from whatever the results are. I think
that has been proven correct.
A very large proportion of voters said they don't consider the feature
important. If they simply mean "not important
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
>> large […]
>
> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
> sense in German Wikipedia, since th
On 4 September 2011 20:50, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
>> wrote:
>
>>> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
>>> sense in Germ
On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard wrote:
> Well, yes, quite plausibly (I'm not German so I can't say from
> personal experience). That said, you can't go to an article called
> [[Swastika]] and not expect to see swastikas, any more than you can go
> to an article called [[Cock ring]] and not
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> > The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
>> > disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
>> > only of degr
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning wrote:
> I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
Of course the labels are prejudiced, that's the whole point. People
can choose which prejudice they want and filter on those l
On 4 September 2011 22:52, David Gerard wrote:
> I'm glad the ALA-unbiased method of selecting labels is clear to
> everyone. Oh, wait.
The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
for people to create ne
On Sep 4, 2011 11:02 PM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:50:26PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > > I really wish people would read previous discussions.
> >
> > I read the dis
On Sep 4, 2011 11:34 PM, "Andre Engels" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
> > whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
&g
On Sep 5, 2011 12:20 AM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-)
> > >
> > > Now, one definition of censorship is :
> > > * Filtering
On 5 September 2011 00:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 September 2011 00:26, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Please define "censorship" because I think the word must mean something very
>> different to you than it does to me. To me it means one person stopping
>> an
On 5 September 2011 14:57, Juergen Fenn wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.09.11 22:18 schrieb Kim Bruning:
>
>> * There's nothing wrong with the filter program itself
>
> That's wrong. What's wrong with the whole programme is that the
> Foundation did not ask Wikimedians whether they liked to have it or not
> Th
On Sep 5, 2011 7:08 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Thomas Dalton
wrote:
> >
> > If the poll had been done properly, we wouldn't have a problem. The
> > only problem is the the poll was so poorly designed that it will need
&
On Sep 5, 2011 9:19 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see that question on the survey.
>
> The first question asked people how important they considered it to be
> that the projects offer the feature. The perceived importance of
> o
On Sep 5, 2011 9:35 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> The questions are all relating to the development of the feature, save
> for the 'culturally neutral' question: the first is about how to
> prioritise it, and the others are about setting out the specs for the
> feature.
That first question would
On 6 September 2011 05:53, Shii wrote:
> I am an American Wikipedia administrator living in Japan. Recently, as
> you may have seen on the news (but not Wikinews), Japan got a new
> prime minister. I watched his press conference and decided to grace
> Wikinews with this breaking story within minut
On 8 September 2011 22:13, Geoff Brigham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining
> for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a
> new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good
> communicatio
On 10 September 2011 21:26, Etienne wrote:
> I have proposed an wiki for managing disputes (cross-wiki and local). It¹s
> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dispute. This wiki would have many
> venues, mediation, arbitration and other ways. There would also have an
> private wikis for arbitrator
2011/9/10 Etienne :
> It would be mainly for wikis without dispute resolution. EBE123
Is that a problem that actually exists? I would expect wikis to create
dispute resolution processes when they reach the size where they need
it. Before then, they can probably resolve disputes through informal
m
Sounds interesting. It is certainly true that wikinews was never as
successful as we had hoped. Perhaps this new project will manage more. Good
luck!
On Sep 12, 2011 9:51 PM, "Tempodivalse" wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkin
On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, "Thomas Morton"
wrote:
>
> It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and
> failed".
>
> When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
> to give WN to help them stay in the market"
In what way are we competing? Our
On 13 September 2011 00:04, MZMcBride wrote:
> Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
> is quick to call Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director," isn't it? Or plaster
> "Wikipedia founder" on every fundraiser-related publication? Out of the last
> X extensions enabl
On 13 September 2011 13:06, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:24, wrote:
>> It's my opinion, that Wikimedia should try to support a Wikinews by
>> paying a editor in chief and a core team of reporters to secure that
>> the project always stays above the critical mass.
>
> That's a
On 14 September 2011 18:34, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Actually, wikipedia did have a paid full-time editor at bootup.
Yes, and that went really well, didn't it? ;)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wik
On 15 September 2011 05:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:17, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> If volunteer written news is an impossible model to make work, then we
>> should just close Wikinews. We shouldn't turn it into a professional
>> project. That'
On 15 September 2011 07:31, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I've been away for a week offline, so am trying to catch up. I'm
> picking a random point in the thread to try and answer lots of
> questions at once, from my own viewpoint.
Thank you for this email. I'm going to pick just a few portions of it
to
On Sep 16, 2011 7:39 PM, "phoebe ayers" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
> > 86% of the German contributers opposed the feature. Does the same
> > pattern apply to the global poll, or was it just the difference in
> > question? We don't know as long per project
On 21 September 2011 14:06, Milos Rancic wrote:
> You didn't understand me well. It's not about fork(s), it's about
> wrappers, shells around the existing projects.
>
> * en.safe.wikipedia.org/wiki/ would point to
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> * When you click on "edit" from en.safe, you would get th
On 21 September 2011 18:37, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:10, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> What is the advantage of that compared with the feature as it was
>> originally proposed? All you've done is made the URL more complicated.
>> You'll still
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
>> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread
On 29 September 2011 23:49, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>>> The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
>>> being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
&g
On 29 September 2011 23:55, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
>> arbitrary filtering to me...
>
>
> Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the s
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
> what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
choose what to see an
On 4 October 2011 14:12, Donaldo Papero wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days –
> and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will
> introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to,
> Wikipedia) to publis
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
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were opposed or not.
> We are not going to revisit the res
On 9 October 2011 15:12, 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 r
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
>> community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
>> be), the WMF will lose horribly and the f
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
> the community to develop a solution that meets the or
On 9 October 2011 17:46, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Nobody wants civil war.
>>
>> I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
>> conside
On 9 October 2011 18:16, Lodewijk wrote:
> Discussing 'what if' scenarios in public rarely does any good if those same
> people have full power to avoid that scenario in the first place. Both the
> community and the board can avoid the sitation that we don't reach
> agreement. Therefore, discussin
On 9 October 2011 17:49, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
>> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
>>
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
> Calm down. No one is "forcing" or "pushing" anything, more like
> "offering". Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
> manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
> Wikipedia).
Tobias was talking about t
On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
>>> the community to develop a solution that meets the original
>>> requirements as laid out in its r
On 10 October 2011 15:27, MZMcBride wrote:
> I think the issue of "I'll put down my gun when you put down yours" is still
> being a bit side-stepped, but it isn't really the responsibility of a single
> Board member (or even the Board) to make agreements not to impose this
> feature on a particula
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864
I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would
be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have
repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case will either be thrown out or
it will turn out to depend on the existing
On 21 October 2011 16:02, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the
> same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please
> don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting
> their entrenched positions again and
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely.
There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not su
On 24 October 2011 09:25, Orionist wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure a consenus of
>> wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
>> consult an expert?
>
>
> In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every
> image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'
2011/10/24 Carl Fürstenberg :
> It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are
> stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line
> drawing from World War II is free or not.
Indeed. In legal terminology, the difference is between a matter of
fact and a matt
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 talk page and I'll help
> you out!" that means.
On 11 November 2011 18:39, Klaus Graf wrote:
> This case has to be discussed IN THE PUBLIC. As
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29#File:DPAG_2011_55_Herren_im_Bad.jpg
>
> gives not sufficient reasons for the decisions and no sufficient
> background there is NO need
On 20 November 2011 06:22, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Step 1: Initially, the wiki's category system takes you to a broad
> problem type "My air conditioner doesn't work".
> Step 2: On that page, the wiki will say: "Check if the air conditioner
> is plugged in. Does this solve your problem? [Yes] [No]"
>
It's too late for this year, since a lot of bids have already started, but
in future I would suggest formalising the currently unofficial rotation
policy.
If everyone knew in advance what continent it was going to be in, you won't
have bids that are disadvantaged from the outset because they're on
On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/11/28 Dirk Franke :
>> Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale?
>> Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
>
> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
I don't tend to do "+1" emails, but I'll make a
On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp wrote:
> Dear all;
>
> We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard
> about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
> German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a
> sexist plac
On 29 November 2011 22:19, emijrp wrote:
> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton
>
>> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp wrote:
>> > Dear all;
>> >
>> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
>> heard
>> > about gender and
On 3 December 2011 21:57, Alasdair wrote:
> Hi Megan, it is interesting to see the new fundraising banners as they are
> being launched - but it would be good aswell to get more detailed information
> about how they are performing. Particularly as the fundraising statistics
> page is down at th
On 3 December 2011 22:27, Abbas Mahmood wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. While they
> were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial suggested
> username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times until they finally
> fo
On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner wrote:
> Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for philosophy, none
> of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism,
> empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is this?
There are always going to
On 6 December 2011 11:45, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Fae
>>
>> This is outrageous. I would say COI notices + Disputed Neutrality notices.
>>
>
> Lets not get too dramatic.
>
> And anyway; if the purpose of doing such tagging is to punish them for
> their actions, well, then it's probably not
On 7 December 2011 15:28, Woojin Kim wrote:
> Wikimedia Foundation fundraising is now making a misunderstanding about
> Wikipedia. Some mass media report that WMF and WP is now encountering
> financial difficulties so WMF urges public donation.[1][2][3] Well, I don't
> know that is what WMF intend
On 7 December 2011 18:08, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Well you know; at the start of the drive the foundation is short of cash.
Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves. The fundraising
drives aren't a desparate attempt to avoid going bankrupt. They are a
routine, planned way of generating re
On 9 December 2011 11:37, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves.
>
> I believe the figure is that they have 6 months of operating costs in reserve.
>
> Whether you regard that as &
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey wrote:
> Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature,
Really?!
How is not having realised that this new feature would break 1000's of
images and preventing it not something going wrong in the planning?
(And yes, I mean "break" - they displayed co
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
>> wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
>> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
>> correctl
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
>> I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes,
>> an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right
>> to have the work accredited to them whenever it is r
Can someone summarise for me the current status of this strike idea?
Jimmy held an informal strawpoll on his talk page to see if there was
any support for such action, which there was (to my regret - as bad as
this act sounds, I really don't think it's a good idea). Presumably
there will be a more
I would say that "technically" Jimmy's statement that it was just an
informal poll to decide whether it is worth discussing further is binding.
Someone acting on that poll alone might get away with it, but it would
"technically" be out-of-process.
On Dec 15, 2011 12:53 AM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
>
On Dec 15, 2011 3:20 AM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
> That, and remember that it is preferable to stage a protest BEFORE
passage of
> the bill. :-P
I'm not sure about that. If we strike before they pass the bill then we are
assuming they will pass it. Shouldn't we give them a chance to do the right
thi
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> >
> >> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
> > season
> >> for unpalatable truths, and not
On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes
wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread -
> > but instead your opinion *
On 27 December 2011 21:01, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Remember there was MSN Explorer (desktop software) that let you browse MSN
> and use MSN services such as Hotmail?
>
> Remember Google Earth (desktop software) that lets you browse the Earth and
> provides additional services based on the Earth?
>
> W
On 31 December 2011 00:52, Jan Kučera wrote:
> I see following wikis hold secred information:
>
> http://internal.wikimedia.org
> http://office.wikimedia.org
> http://board.wikimedia.org
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can NOT freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. That'
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
> banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
> hard to find the right balance.
This banner isn't just annoying, it is untrue.
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
>> On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley wrote:
>>> Hi everyone -
>>>
>>> It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
>>> bann
On 31 December 2011 17:31, Mono mium wrote:
> Seriously, get over it.
That's your attitude to the WMF misleading donors? Being honest when
raising funds in incredibly important.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley wrote:
> Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't
consider reducing expenditure, rather than more aggress
Phoebe,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Do you have any more details
on the contingency plan? Really, we need to know what spending would
get cut. To make these decisions you need to, as economists say,
"think at the margins". You need to compare marginal utility and
marginal cost.
That i
On 1 January 2012 00:24, David Levy wrote:
> And when it was pointed out that a reference to Sue Gardner as
> "Wikipedia Executive Director" was inaccurate, Zack's initial response
> was "We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner
> right now." (In other words, "We'll test the
On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker wrote:
> Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today,
> you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The
> actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This
> is called "learning from expe
On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker wrote:
> Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not
> the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the
> spending priorities of the WMF, I'd suggest you start a separate thread.
Please read http://en.wikipedia.or
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker wrote:
> I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who
> have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about
> how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to
> me that it is your straw
On 3 January 2012 22:36, Theo10011 wrote:
> WMF started the email campaign last year for the first time I'm assuming,
> we used it this year as well. We had a period of several months before the
> fundraiser, that fundraising team conducted tests to replace Jimmy, the
> fundraiser started and look
On Jan 4, 2012 12:44 AM, "Theo10011" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > The WMF's conclusions about what banners work best are based on
> > extensive testing. What are yours based on?
>
>
> My guts.
>
> BTW How hav
Check the page history - I don't think those bits were added by the
foundation.
On Jan 4, 2012 3:26 PM, "WereSpielChequers"
wrote:
> Re Tom's suggestion that we have an RFC on meta to discuss what we are and
> aren't prepared to do when fundraising; We already have a discussion at
> Meta
>
> http
On 4 January 2012 16:24, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Check the IP history; Jan-Bart added them ;p
Now I'm on an actual computer and not trying to go through page
histories on my phone, I've taken a closer look. The bit about being
truthful was in the initial version. The other bit is the result of
edit
On 12 January 2012 19:52, James Forrester wrote:
> To re-iterate my comment in November, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia
> community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are
> already a few bids[2] on Meta, but if you or your local community are
> thinking about putting one in, you
On 18 January 2012 11:48, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 18/01/2012 05:25, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> * Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising
>> activities must aim to raise the maximum possible amount of money from
>> donors while minimizing administrative costs as much as possible (in
I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment
to coordinate the blackout.
On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma wrote:
> (rescheduled after the cancelled maintenance of last Friday)
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I will be migrating the mailing lists from a very old server (lily) in
Just seen the datestamp... why did that email just come through now?!
On 18 January 2012 13:42, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment
> to coordinate the blackout.
>
> On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma wrote:
>> (res
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct
> lobbying" of related issues. Basically that means they can say "this is good
> and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual.
> They can
People can subscribe and set their preferences to not receive any emails,
then they can email the list with no problems.
On Jan 22, 2012 6:44 PM, "keisuke koyanagi" wrote:
> Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
> are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuabl
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
While we are more than a conventional encyclopedia, we are still an
encyclopaedia and I don't think we should add job and product adverts to
our articles.
If people want t
301 - 400 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
