:If you don't want to make more people angry at you than you
:already have, then I suggest you take a break from this discussion
:right about now.
Certainly. Have meta and enjoy it as a separate community increasingly
unusable by any other, as is working so well for Commons, rather than
the service project it purports to be; just stop representing it as
such, because it simply isn't.
- d.
I was afraid this was going to happen. Apparently, what we have
here is a serious lack of understanding towards each other's
goals and now we're lowering ourselves to screaming at each
other.
I'm going to second David's proposal that we start a Meta2
or something similiar. Assume that we suddenly cause time
to stop and Meta to be placed in stasis. What is it that
people like David and I want?
1.) A usable work-wiki that included things that aren't
necessarily appropriate for storage on Wikipedia
(such as essays) but should be allowed to be placed
somewhere.
2.) No historical content about Wikimedia whatsoever.
That'll be the original Meta's baby and not Meta2.
3.) Faster process and community than Meta; keep Meta the
way it is, but give us our own Meta2 to play around with.
4.) It doesn't *need* to be named Meta2.
5.) Encourage Wikipedia users to start using it after the
basic policies and infrastructure are written; don't worry,
we can handle it.
6.) Strict[er than Meta] image policies.
If we can just have that, then I (and others) will probably
forget about the current Meta, and everyone can keep Meta
just the way it is and some other person can go ahead and
try to make heads and tails out of it. So... can we please
have this project?
--Alex
On 3/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>* :If you don't want to make more people angry at you than you
*>* :already have, then I suggest you take a break from this discussion
*>* :right about now.
*>*
*>*
*>* Certainly. Have meta and enjoy it as a separate community increasingly
*>* unusable by any other, as is working so well for Commons, rather than
*>* the service project it purports to be; just stop representing it as
*>* such, because it simply isn't.
*>*
*>*
*>* - d.
*
David,
You can continue doing work on making Meta *more* usable. Nobody is
suggesting that Meta become less usable.
But:
*Stop making unwarranted accusations about what Meta is or isn't (ie.,
again, point me to a page etc. that's stopping people adding content
to Meta)
*Stop being a [[m:DICK]] - it's doing us no good whatsoever
Cormac
>* _______________________________________________
*>* foundation-l mailing list
*>* foundation-l at wikimedia.org
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
*>* http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*>
Hi All!
This is my first post on the mailing list and I am not sure if this is the
right mailing for this topic.
Actually I had two ideas
1)I have found that people tend to use the internet a lot to research about
about various products/services that they wish to buy.And as far as I know
most of the sites that offer information on the products or services are
commericial sites either hosted by the creator of the product or service or
by some other commercial site which would probably also be selling the
product, so there is no guarantee how unbiased the information is.So I was
wondering if we can create a web site which will have unbiased information
about all the products/services in the world, where users will create the
pages with product/service information , how good , how bad it is, what are
the alternatives, what price the user paid etc etc.Something similar to the
wikipedia site for knowledge where users can log in and edit.I have not
thought about the design of the web site, its just a rough idea so far, but
what do you people think?wouldnt it be great to have just one web site where
you can look up all the unbiased information of whatever product/service you
want to buy?
2)I was reading that wikimedia projects need lot of donations to support
hardware and software requirements for the staggering growth its
having.Iwas wondering if wikimedia could earn this money by itself for
example by
just showing some small non intrusive adds(like google adds) which are
selected in a fair fashion by a search algorithm(again its a rough idea not
sure how to do it yet), wouldnt that be good?Obviously all this money can be
pushed back into the primary goal of wikimediafoundation 'Imagine a world in
which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human
knowledge. That's what we're doing." wouldnt that make the
wikimediafoundation much more stronger to achieve its goal?Just a thought
what do you people think?
Thank you!
Regards
GP
Whoops, sent from the wrong address.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, David Gerard wrote:
> legally affiliated with the Foundation. I note that Aurevilly just
> blanked his en: Wikipedia user page, coinciding with expressing his
> contempt for en:wp openly. Just the thing for a Foundation person to
> show their high regard for cross project issues.
David, this comment is totally out of line.
Villy has nothing to do with the metaproject thread. Blanking one's user
page, while a pity, happens all the time. And he is one of the last
people I would expect to be disrespectful to another wiki project.
If you're talking about a conversation I was part of (and I'm guessing
you are), Villy did *not* express contempt for en:wp (though you
misunderstood him at first), and he clarified what he meant respectfully.
If you want to discuss that further, this really isn't the way to do it.
SJ
I'd like to put in the open the notion of semi-protecting all
Wikimedia projects [*] during April Fool's Day, that is, making them
editable only to registered users with accounts more than a few days
old. I have little hope that such an option will be seriously
considered for this year (at least not without an emergency decree
from above right about, well, now), but I think in a few days, after
you will all see the damage we'll have to deal with again this year,
you might be more inclined to agree with me. We could phrase it
positively by declaring April 1 "Wikimedia Spring Cleaning Day" (and
it would not preclude us from having a few jokes on each project). The
site notice could be used to highlight maintenance pages like Cleanup
or the Wikiwork Brigade (sorry for being en.wp-centric).
I'd also like to highlight a policy draft I worked on last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools&oldid=1…
Yes, I know, it's all awfully unfunny, but when everyone tries to be
funny, it starts becoming a problem. Wikis are built on the model of
assuming good faith; the wiki model breaks down when everyone starts
acting like a jerk. April 1 is really unique in this way. The problem
is mostly with users who will insert nonsense into articles as a joke,
but have no idea (and will not care enough) to remove it later. I'm
also quite sure that many people will find things funny which we would
normally consider to be cases of aggressive vandalism. People have
very different senses of humor. For some, April 1 is the one day of
the year where they feel they have an obligation to do something
funny, while they really aren't. Funny. At all.
I think not descending into complete anarchy once a year is a
desirable outcome. A yearly 24 hour timeout might also be a good idea
for entirely different reasons.
And no, this is not a joke. :)
Erik
[*] At least in those languages which are predominantly accessed from
countries where April Fool's Day is a recognized cultural concept.
> Agreed. We must do our best so that inland users really succeed to
> access the projects. I am not sure I understood the method you plan to
> use to ensure CNBlog proxy users will have access. Can you clarify ? I
> will read the wikitech as well...
Thanks Ant.
We have post the same message to wikitech-l (
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-March/034563.html
), and get feedback there that XFF project (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project ) could be a solution for
our problems.
With help from Tim Starling, Wikimedia had already added CNBlog.org to
the trusted XFF list. Now any vandalism from CNBlog.org can be blocked
without interrupting normal contributions. Also the real IP will be
revealed for any edit from CNBlog.org.
The XFF really works, thanks for our developers.
> Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation,
>
> I'm very pleased to extend a very warm invitation to
> you all to attend
> the annual iCommons Summit taking place this year in
> the heart of free
> culture - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - from the 23rd to
> the 25th of June.
> We're hoping to have very strong participation by
> the Wikimedia
> Foundation in the event - along with communities
> from Creative
> Commons, Science Commons, Ubuntu, open access and
> others.
>
> This year's Summit is set to be one of the most
> exciting events for
> creative and knowledge commons pioneers from around
> the world and is
> structured around three major themes:
>
> 1. Tools. Developing effective, relevant tools to
> assist other
> creators, authors, scientists and researchers to
> develop and showcase
> their creativity and innovation.
>
> 2. Policy. Strategies to ensure international,
> regional and local
> policy fora that are conducive to the development
> and nurturing of the
> commons.
>
> 3. Practice. Learning from the experience of others
> to develop
> effective models for the development of open content
> in societies
> around the world.
>
> The goals of iCommons are to build the Summit into a
> launch-pad for
> global cooperation around commons projects and to
> provide an open,
> creative space for practitioners to learn from best
> case practices and
> to showcase new ideas. With iCommons' strong
> institutional
> partnerships, we will continue to nurture these
> alliances throughout
> the year, providing the tools and spaces for
> commoners to build on the
> friendships and shared experience of the event, and
> building a united
> global commons community.
>
> The three-day program will have a mix of formal
> presentations,
> roundtable working groups, practical workshops and
> community-driven
> program slots that enable participants to gain
> strategic insights and
> practical techniques as well as play a critical role
> in shaping the
> emerging global commons movement.
>
> With keynote speakers including Larry Lessig, Jimmy
> Wales, Joi Ito and
> James Boyle who will inspire participants with a
> vision of a living,
> thriving commons, to members of the expanding
> iCommons community
> showcasing their ideas and inviting participation in
> key projects,
> this year's Summit is proving to be a must-attend
> for anyone engaged
> in the growth and development of the digital commons
> of the future.
>
> We sincerely hope that as many Wikimedia Foundation
> members can attend
> as possible - and I look forward to receiving your
> suggestions for
> presenting the work of the Foundation at the event.
>
> I will send more details when we launch the website
> later this week,
> but please diarise in the meantime :)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Heather.
>
> --
> Heather Ford
> Acting Executive Director: iCommons
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 29, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Wikimedia Foundation: invitation to the iCommons Summit -
23-25 June, Rio
To: foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org
Cc: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
Please forward to the list - thank you!
__________________________________
Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation,
I'm very pleased to extend a very warm invitation to you all to attend
the annual iCommons Summit taking place this year in the heart of free
culture - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - from the 23rd to the 25th of June.
We're hoping to have very strong participation by the Wikimedia
Foundation in the event - along with communities from Creative
Commons, Science Commons, Ubuntu, open access and others.
This year's Summit is set to be one of the most exciting events for
creative and knowledge commons pioneers from around the world and is
structured around three major themes:
1. Tools. Developing effective, relevant tools to assist other
creators, authors, scientists and researchers to develop and showcase
their creativity and innovation.
2. Policy. Strategies to ensure international, regional and local
policy fora that are conducive to the development and nurturing of the
commons.
3. Practice. Learning from the experience of others to develop
effective models for the development of open content in societies
around the world.
The goals of iCommons are to build the Summit into a launch-pad for
global cooperation around commons projects and to provide an open,
creative space for practitioners to learn from best case practices and
to showcase new ideas. With iCommons' strong institutional
partnerships, we will continue to nurture these alliances throughout
the year, providing the tools and spaces for commoners to build on the
friendships and shared experience of the event, and building a united
global commons community.
The three-day program will have a mix of formal presentations,
roundtable working groups, practical workshops and community-driven
program slots that enable participants to gain strategic insights and
practical techniques as well as play a critical role in shaping the
emerging global commons movement.
With keynote speakers including Larry Lessig, Jimmy Wales, Joi Ito and
James Boyle who will inspire participants with a vision of a living,
thriving commons, to members of the expanding iCommons community
showcasing their ideas and inviting participation in key projects,
this year's Summit is proving to be a must-attend for anyone engaged
in the growth and development of the digital commons of the future.
We sincerely hope that as many Wikimedia Foundation members can attend
as possible - and I look forward to receiving your suggestions for
presenting the work of the Foundation at the event.
I will send more details when we launch the website later this week,
but please diarise in the meantime :)
Best wishes,
Heather.
--
Heather Ford
Acting Executive Director: iCommons
Phone: +27 11 717 3914
Cell: +27 82 872 7374
IM:
queenbea878: AOL
243161375: ICQ
heatherford: skype
I would like to know what the current policy is (if any) for people who
are strongly suspected of violating copyright of content that was
produced on Wikimedia projects. I'm not talking about people dumping
copyrighted content onto a Wikimedia project, but somebody thinking that
the content is free and therefore is in the public domain and they are
free to use it in any way they want.
I guess we should feel flattered that this is happening, and I'm going
to give a specific example:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies
This Wikibook has been slightly modified and copied onto a number of
websites, including some very commercial sites that are actually
charging even for access to this content. See:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22During+an+unnamed+time+of+war%2…
This was marked as a copyright violation, and I think it is... of
Wikibooks material.
What is interesting here is that it is not a wholesale mirror of
Wikibooks (there are some of those), but rather a slight modification to
the content and trying to pass it off as original compositions. These
websites are quite sleazy as well anyway, because they are selling term
papers for lazy students, but it is still interesting that they would
pick content that originated on a Wikimedia website. As this Wikibook
has been around for a couple of years and the full edit history is
available to show each edit and change, I think it is obvious that the
content was created at en.wikibooks originally, at least to veteran
Wikimedia users.
I suspect this is going to be a larger problem in the future.
--
Robert Scott Horning
Erik Moeller wrote:
>The problem
>is mostly with users who will insert nonsense into articles as a joke,
>but have no idea (and will not care enough) to remove it later. I'm
>also quite sure that many people will find things funny which we would
>normally consider to be cases of aggressive vandalism. People have
>very different senses of humor. For some, April 1 is the one day of
>the year where they feel they have an obligation to do something
>funny, while they really aren't. Funny. At all.
>
>
Part of the reason they're not funny is that most of the time, they're
also not very original. As Wikipedia has now been through a few April
Fool's Days, I've seen quite a variety of jokes, pranks, and hoaxes, and
I'm sure those with more experience and longer memories know of even
more. I would be hard-pressed to come up with something truly original
and funny, but if someone could I'd enjoy it and have no objection.
Perhaps simply declaring off-limits the stuff that's been done already
would go a long ways toward cutting down on unfunny April Fools.
--Michael Snow