Dear folks,
The second of the security consulting firms we've been working with on
developing a security profile for Wikimania in Alexandria has released
its report for our publication. The second firm is Stratfor
Protective Intelligence, and their report can be found here: <http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alexandria%2C_Egypt_-_Securit…
>.
Stratfor has a "Welcome, Wikimedia Members" page at <https://www.stratfor.com/campaign/welcome_wikimedia_members
> in case you want to consult with them on other matters.
The first report, from Clayton Associates, continues to be available
here: <http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt_country_profile_04-22-0…
>.
The initial Wikimedia Foundation "Alexandria Security FAQ" can still
be found here:
<http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Security_FAQ>.
I hope the consensus here is that the Foundation has been responsive
to security concerns raised on this list and elsewhere. We have tried
to assemble a full range of resources for those who have raised these
concerns.
--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi all,
Somebody from the new Karakalpak Wikipedia wrote me today to ask what
font is used for the Latin text in the labels on Wikipedia logos. The
vast majority (that is, those created by Nohat or myself) use Hoefler.
This is not a free font. I don't have the font on my current system,
and the only ways for the Karakalpak logo designer to obtain the font
would be to pay $200 to obtain it, or download it illegally. Just as
an idea, I looked up average wages in Uzbekistan and found that for
many workers, this is more than they earn in an entire month. The
other common scripts on Wikipedia, Cyrillic and Arabic, also use
non-free fonts: if I recall correctly, Minion is used for Cyrillic,
and I can't remember what we use for Arabic.
I would love to see the community select a suitable free font to
replace the non-free fonts we use in almost all of our logos. (yi.wp
uses a free font for its logo, but I know of no other Wikipedia that
does)
I understand that the current font has become associated with
Wikipedia to a certain extent, but I feel that this is an important
matter of principal and something that we should think about as a way
to support free software and also to allow ALL people with the
requisite expertise and computer access the ability to design a logo
for their own language that uses the same font as any other language.
Mark
Folks,
Please bear with me while I run a test of my e-mail service. Comcast has
been having problems for the past 24 hours & for some reason I haven't
received any posts from any of the various WP-related Mailing Lists.
Marc
Hello,
The language subcommittee only allows languages that have a living
native community (except Wikisource, due to its archivist nature).
This is based on an interpretation of the Wikimedia Foundation mission
to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being". Thus,
the overriding purpose of allowing a wiki in a new language is to make
it accessible to more human beings. If a language has no native users,
allowing a wiki in that language does not fit our mission because it
does not make that project accessible to more human beings. Instead, a
wiki in their native languages should be requested if it doesn't
already exist.
Typically, the users requesting a wiki in an extinct language don't
want to provide educational material to more people at all, but only
want to promote or revive the language. While these are noble goals,
they are not those of the Wikimedia Foundation, so that a wiki should
not be created simply to fulfill them.
But that is my opinion. What do you think; should wikis be allowed in
every extinct language?
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
Since this issue is about en.wikipedia's arbcom foundation-l is the place to
discuss this.
Right now we have an Arbitration Committee that has declared ownership over
Arbitration related sub pages. Arbitrators will not allow community or
members of the community to edit or restructure these pages.
For example I was denied the right to create the redirect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Davenbellew…
was promptly deleted by an admin who I believe is an arbitrator.
Arbcom will not allow the restructure of RfAr page which has become very
large or so I am told
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#For_th…
do not know what that assessment is based on but I suspect it may be
yet
another "private" discussion of arbcom. Us lowlifes hardly hear from arbcom
anymore. It takes forever to load the RFAR page on GPRS connections.
Arbcom was founded by Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales to help resolve
disputes. Arbcom is beginning to be the source of a dispute over the most
trivial disagreements.
- White Cat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7428104.stm
"Q: If Wikipedia can stay free of advertising why can't the BBC? The
worst decision the Trust has made, in my view."
(I must note that I personally don't object to ads on Wikipedia, but I
do think it would be a public relations disaster externally as well as
internally, and should be avoided as hard as we can. I'm posting the
above for anecdotal interest.)
- d.
Let's try to resume previous discussions. Proposals for the first set
of global roles are:
* Global bot flag for interwiki bots. This flag may be used only for
non-controversial actions, like interwikis and user space pages are.
* Anti-vandal fighters. They should have the next possibilities:
** Rollback
** Delete
** Undelete. I submitted a bug at Bugzilla with ask for making
permission "undelete if I deleted"; when/if such permission would be
implemented, undelte privilege should be substituted with this
privilege; it is obvious that undelete is needed only in the case when
page is deleted by accident.
** Block user (global) permission is not necessary, but it would be
better that anti-vandal fighter are taking care about vandals, not
stewards (while stewards are able to do so, too).
** Anti-vandal fighters would be elected in the similar manner like
Meta administrators: they would nominate themselves whenever and
voting will last something like 7 days.
* Meta bureaucrats
** Meta bureaucrats exist and I realized that there is no need for one
more role for "global bureaucrats".
** Meta bureaucrats would be able to give global bot flag as well as
to give anti-vandal group to the elected contributor.
** Meta bureaucrats should be able to take care about SUL accounts, too.
** Their election process wouldn't be changed. However, note that we
will need more meta bureaucrats.
If there are not serious objections about those proposals, I'll
formulate more precise draft of rights and responsibilities for new
and new-old roles and send it here for further discussion.
5. In another situation,
1. Mr.A own user123@frwikipedia: 50000 edits count
2. Mr.A has ever been approved to be sysop on frwikipedia, but at
that time, he refuse to be sysop
3. Mr.B own user123@lowikipedia: 10000 edits count
4. After SUL, user123 has not been merged by anyone
5. In someday later (after SUL), Mr.B has been elected to be sysop
on lowikipedia
6. At that time (after Mr.B got sysop), who will get the homewiki?
6. The next situation,
1. Mr.A own user123@frwikipedia: 50000 edits count
2. Mr.A has ever been approved to be sysop on frwikipedia, but at
that time, he refuse to be sysop
3. Mr.B own user123@lowikipedia: 10000 edits count
4. When SUL is enabled for sysop only,
4.1 Mr.A try to merge his account, but he can't, since he is not sysop
4.2 Mr.B is sysop on lowikipedia, and Mr.B successfully merge
his user123 account (after Mr.A fail to merge)
5. When SUL is enabled for everyone, Mr.A try to merge his account
again, but he got the message "user123 has already been merged by
user123@lowikipedia"!!!
6. Can Mr.A request steward to delete global account of Mr.B?
FYI:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Veronique Kessler
Date: 2008/5/16
Subject: [Internal-l] Latest Tax Form 990 Available on Foundation Wiki
I just wanted to let you know that our 2006 IRS Form 990 (covering the
fiscal year of July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007)was filed electronically
with the IRS on May 12. This is a required annual filing related to our
status as a U.S. non-profit, charitable foundation.
This form, in a slightly amended version, must be available publicly at
our office site. As a service to the community and the public, we are
pleased to be sharing a PDF version of the filing on the Foundation wiki at:
This is the link to the updated, 2006 Form 990:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:WMF_2007_Form_990.pdf
In anticipation of any questions, we have also prepared a Question and
Answer sheet also posted on the Foundation wiki at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Form_2006_Questions_and_AnswersURL
Of course we'd be happy to field any other questions you might have.
Regards,
--
Veronique Kessler
Chief Financial and Operating Officer, Wikimedia Foundation