It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
Good news !
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Vereniging_Wikimedia_Nederla…
The Vereniging has been approved as a Wikimedia Chapter.
The board retreat in october will welcome Oscar as a representant of the
chapter (and a person generally very trusted and appreciated) to help
structure better the relationship between chapters and Foundation.
Cheers
Anthere
I've crossposted my response to the Foundation and Wikisource lists
since it could interest people there.
Delirium wrote:
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>geni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 9/20/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I guess as a reader I don't see the benefit in *not* covering
>>>>everything. I agree there is a slant towards more coverage of recent
>>>>news events, but that's simply because they're easier to cover. The
>>>>solution, IMO, is not to cover recent events less, but to cover older
>>>>events more. I want to know the equivalent of this stuff for other time
>>>>periods! Were there short-lived but at the time massively-covered
>>>>events in the 1890s, equivalent to today's frenzies over child
>>>>kidnappings? What about the thousands of political scandals, major and
>>>>minor, that have at various times shortened governments' tenures, forced
>>>>cabinet reshuffles, etc., etc.? It's all good info we're missing!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Problem is that a lot of the data that would be useful in answering
>>>your question is stored on microfilm and there isn't really a quick
>>>way to scan that.
>>>
>>>
>>This is a Wikisource function, but that dosn't make it easier. I have
>>most of the first 20 years of McClure's Magazine. It was a monthly that
>>became famous for muckraking journalism, and exposing the behaviour of
>>big companies and government administration in the pre WWI era. 1,200
>>pages per year for 20 years gives 24,000 pages, and is a daunting task.
>>Weeklies and dailies don't make things any easier.
>>
>>
>While it would certainly be nice to have it all scanned, I don't think
>it's necessary. We already cite lots of sources that aren't available
>on the internet---recently published books, journal articles, etc.---so
>I don't see why it would be a bigger problem that old news articles are
>only available in archives, on microfilm, or via digital subscription.
>Ain't nothin' wrong with citing sources that require a visit to a
>library to access.
>
This is certainly a fair comment. Of course the recent publications
have copyright constraints that are a block to any kind of scanning.
Certainly, for the sake of discussion I am limiting my comments to
material where the public domain status is unquestioned. That's enough
material to keep us busy.
Some of my old bound volumes of "McClure's", "Scientific American",
"Popular Science", and other odd volumes have library markings and
indications that they were discarded by some public or college library.
I have no objection to people visiting libraries, but there's no
guarantee that a nearby library will have the material sought. Project
Gutenberg already includes 6 issues of "McClure's, a far but complete
but substantial number of "Scientific American" when it was a weekly,
and no "Popular Science". ("Popular Science" in the 19th century had
far more in-depth articles than its present incarnation.) In general, I
don't think we should be duplicating the efforts of PG; there's more
than enough work for everybody to do.
Other important magazines like [[The Smart Set]], where H. L. Mencken
wrote, are much more difficult to find. We do need to stay within the
realm of the possible. Making information freely available is not a
simple task; it will likely take the co-operation and co-ordination of
many players who will each establish where they can work best. I would
love to be able to create direct links from a WMF project to a specific
spot in a book that has been digitized by another player without having
to contend with a lot of proprietary restrictions being applied to
public domain books.
The task is enormous.
Ec
I decide to go out of this project.
Arno Lagrange accused me I made vandalismus because I reverted his
edit which he brought without any discussion and consensus. I couldn't
simply work with that due to its complexity, and if I didn't revert
it, the results wouldn't be released in this schedule you know.
I don't want to be appraud, but such disrespect I haven't expected in
the truth. I am now very regretful to be in the Election Committee and
to have worked for such a person.
Thank you for your all helps and assitances, and also for friendship
until today. I won't forget you,
Take care.
--
Kizu Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* vox populi, vox dei *
Congrats to Erik, and here are my own thoughts of how his particular
strengths could best be applied. I got this stuff by going through his
candidate statement and pulling out the things that I personally think
are both the most important and exciting and which match his interests
and skills.
Erik, I hope you find this helpful.
1. Openness - I think the entire board is strongly in support of
openness and transparency, and in particular with respect to committee
processes. The difficulty has been in how to properly balance openness
with the need for privacy and discretion in certain matters. Your first
platform plank was to work on "a clear and sensible proposal as to how
we can guarantee transparency, openness, participation and
accountability within these Wikimedia committees." Bravo!
2. "To avoid both extremes, we need to build a diverse Board whose
members are trained to resolve conflicts" - bravo again. I hope that
you will support me in efforts to quickly expand the board to include
not only more people from the community, but also people who can help us
in other ways with professional expertise and/or public credibility.
Obviously, this is to be a hot topic for the October board retreat, and
quite possibly sooner.
3. Developing world projects - I strongly support that we, as a
community and organization, turn our attention increasingly to a more
global perspective. We know that the elections for the board (just to
cite one example) were heavily skewed towards the European languages,
and specifically Western and Northern European languages.
It is easy to make a prediction: within 10 years, Arabic Wikipedia (just
to pick one example) will be larger than German Wikipedia (for instance)
today. This means that world projects should be a top priority, and I
think one of your best skills has always been to guide large scale
proposals (wikinews for example) to broad community acceptance. I hope
that you will focus a lot on that.
I didn't want to ask this actually while voting was open in case anyone
got worried, but not that voting has closed I'd like to ask something.
How are our votes actually counted and, more importantly, how can we each
be certain that the votes we made are actually the ones which are being
counted?
I ask this because of the issues raised in the USA about election fraud
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold#Security_Concerns etc.) and wondered
whether the same could happen with us, After all, the voting isn't being
carried out on independent servers it is on Wikimedia servers and,
presumably, a lot of people have access to those who could do things
without leaving a trace.
I am *not* meaning imply that anything has been done, but I would very
much like to know what security voters like myself have that our votes
have been correctly recorded and tallied.
Alison Wheeler
Congradulations to Erik, and wish you doing well in the board. :)
H.T. Chien
User:htchien
___________________________________________________
您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！
http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
habj wrote:
>I am not sure if the translators need appreciation from the candidates. I
>think it would be more appreciated if more of them made their texts more
>easy to translate. Things to avoid are things like puns: "Bored? Board
>Questions for Improv." OK of course I just skipped the pun, but he risked
>getting it translated to something strange in a couple of languages. So do
>the people who write "endowment" rather than "finansial reserve" or
>something similar (if I understood that term correct in context - I am still
>not 100% sure that I did.
My apologies on that front. I assumed that the pun would simply be
translated out by the translators -- I tried to help out in
the translation task for a few languages which I kinda-sorta speak,
and removed the pun in each non-English (I think). I believe I was
the one who first introduced the idea of an endowment -- it's not quite
exactly identical to a financial reserve, in that only interest from
its investment flows into the general coffers of the project. My apologies
if it wasn't exactly clear -- it's a financial-esque term. If you had asked,
I would've explained. I do appreciate the efforts of translators though,
especially those who had to deal with my half-baked Spanish. My thanks
to them and to the election coordinators.
---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org
Yeah, I totally did the Vulcan nerve pinch on a guy once
and it definitely worked because he said "Ow."
-- Seen on SomethingAwful
We, the Election Officers, hereby give notice of the results of the
2006 Board of Trustees election. The winner is Erik Möller, also known
as "Eloquence" or "Xirzon". Assuming that the Board endorses the
result and appoints Möller, he will replace Angela Beesley, who chose
to resign [1] earlier this year. The term to which Möller will be
appointed will cover the rest of the term for which Beesley was
elected, and will end with the ordinary 2007 election.
In total, 2347 valid ballots were cast and accepted; the specific
results are as follows:
1st - 987 (42%) - Eloquence (Erik Möller)
2nd - 702 (30%) - Mindspillage (Kathleen (Kat) Walsh)
3rd - 648 (28%) - Oscar (Oscar van Dillen)
4th - 580 (25%) - Arnomane (Daniel Arnold)
5th - 492 (21%) - Kim Bruning
6th - 423 (18%) - AaronSw (Aaron Swartz)
7th - 382 (16%) - Charles Matthews
8th - 378 (16%) - Arno Lagrange
9th - 375 (16%) - Cimon Avaro (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen)
10th - 356 (15%) - Zuirdj (Juan David Ruiz)
11th - 349 (15%) - Kelly Martin
12th - 346 (15%) - UninvitedCompany (Steve Dunlop)
13th - 323 (14%) - Improv (Pat Gunn)
14th - 315 (13%) - Linuxbeak (Alex Schenck)
15th - 297 (13%) - alex756 (Alex T. Roshuk Esq.)
16th - 237 (10%) - Evrik (Bruce Andersen)
17th - 109 ( 5%) - Ross.Hedvicek (Ross Hedvicek)
We would like to take this opportunity to give our thanks to all of
the developers, translators, those people who supported and promoted
the election, and all others for their support and assistance for the
election, and especial thanks to Tim Starling.
[1] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Angela_Beesley_resigns_f…
Yours,
The Election Officials, Wikimedia Foundation Board Election 2006
Essjay
James D. Forrester
Kizu Naoko
Dariusz Siedlecki
Jon Harald Søby
I also want to congratulate Erik and wish him all the best in his new
position.
At the same time, I want to congratulate all the other candidates, who
shared their ideas and vision with the community. I am sure that many of the
issues they raised and the solutions they offered will be at the forefront of the
agenda for the newly constituted Board.
Danny