OK, this might be a crazy idea, but mav, Danny and I thought, after
all that was said in the past few weeks on this list, that we should
try and drain everybody's brain to see where we are going.
This is a bit of a game, serious, but still a game. Your ideas will
help shape the future of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not saying
that all should be implemented, or will see the light, but it is sort
of a giant brainstorming to see where everybody thinks the Wikimedia
Foundation should be in 5 years from now.
The rules are simple:
You will find below a grid of what we think needs to be included in a
five year plan for the Wikimedia Foundation. You may fill all parts,
or just some, as suits you. You may also give details on how to get
there, or not. You're free to say anything that goes through your
head. Your ideas should go on this list.
However, THIS IS NOT TO BE DEBATED. Each of those willing to
participate may give their personal opinion, but no-one is allowed to
criticize/comment on other people's 5-year plan on this list. In a few
days, we will put everything on meta so that can be worked on to shape
a collaborative five year plan. PLEASE DO REFRAIN from hitting the
reply button and commenting other people's ideas.
here is the grid:
==WMF in 5 years==
*Board and management
*Staff (the positions, the roles, whether they're paid or not)
*Budget
*Fundraising scheme
*Philantropic activity and outreach to get our content widely redistributed
*Projects
*Content objectives
*Software objectives
*Relationship between chapters and parent organisation
*Relationships with the outside world (PR, partnerships, etc.)
*Other (anything we did not think of)
Thank you.
Danny, Delphine, Mav
Hoi,
One of the admins of the Dutch wikipedia did visit the International
Institute of Social History (Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale
Geschiedenis - http://www.iisg.nl/ ) in Amsterdam today. This was to
discuss to what extend we can cooperate. The collection of the IISG is
of an international importance and it would be great if we could find a
way to cooperate. There will be several issues that will need to be
resolved before this actually happens. One thing that is of importance
to IISG is that the material that they make available, will get a much
improved exposure to the exposure that it gets through their own
website. There are several ways in which we can improve exposure; using
the material in our Wikipedia and other projects is one and localising
the the Meta data is another way of making this happen. Even when we
have done the things that improve the exposure, it is important that we
are able to quantify the usage material has.
As far as I am aware we do not keep tabs on the usage of individual
articles let alone individual pictures. It would however be important
for us to be able to do this when it helps us to gain the trust from
organisations like the IISG . My question therefore is; can we do this
and, are we happy to do this if it helps us prove our added value to
organisations like the IISG that are looking for more exposure of their
content.
NB I have been asked to ask this question. Personally I have not been
involved in any contact with the IISG. This is a follow-up of the
Koninklijke Bibliotheek contacts.
Thanks,
GerardM
Cormac wrote:
> For July 13th, under the columns C and D, I have the numbers 6,884 and
> 798 respectively. Below this then are two much higher figures (11,285
> and 1,629) - are these the maximum estimates and the above published
> figure the conservative estimate, or how does it work exactly?
Cormac, the July 13th figures are actual counts.
The much higher July figures below it are forecasts for the complete month. Hence the +/- sign.
These forecasts are based on looking at previous three months and calculating the proportion of wikipedians
that fulfilled the criteria on day x, versus the number that did so at the end of the month.
The resulting multiplication factors for all wikipedias together are combined into a weighted average, to minimize distorting effects of peaks in activity in just one wikipedia in previous months.
This is better than just multiplying the actual counts for the 13th by 31/13 to arrive at full months forecasts.
Especially with columns C and D, as the increase in wikipedians that fulfill the norm for C or D is highly unlinear over a month.
This is also why for C: 6884/11285 > 0.5 and for for D: 798/1629 < 0.5
In words: more than half of the wikipedians that would count as active at the end of a month already made the grade at the 13th, most wikipedians who finally qualify for very active only do so later in the month.
When wikistats is run on 6th of month or earlier no forecasts are given as margin of error would be too high.
Erik Zachte
I'm forwarding this to Wikipedia and Foundation-l since the poll could
potentially make Wikinews incompatible with Wikipedia or any of our
other projects. Currently, content from Wikinews can be used in
Wikipedia (though not the other way around). CC-BY-SA is not
compatible with the GNU FDL, so this would not longer be the case.
Earlier polls and discussion are at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
Angela.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net>
Date: Aug 30, 2005 11:57 PM
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Licensure straw poll
To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l(a)wikimedia.org>
A poll is being held at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Licensure_Poll on whether or not
to adopt the CC-by-sa 2.5 licensure for the Wikinews project.
This licensure allows any use of the articles so long as attribution
credit is given to the Wikinews project and any derivations or further
developments are released under an identical licensure.
The poll was suggested by jwales, and is short so the board may have an
idea of how the community feels in time for their next meeting. Please
visit the poll and vote; comment on the discussion page
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikinews/Licensure_Poll).
Amgine
___________