Springer in cooperation with the European Mathematical Society creates
"Encyclopedia of Mathematics" wiki:
http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Main_Page
Invitation to contribute: http://www.euro-math-soc.eu/node/2671
Notice that it is seeded with 8,000 entries from the Kluwer-published
"Encyclopaedia of Mathematics"; these articles remain under copyright
to Springer/Kluwer. However, new contributions and edits will be
licensed cc-by-sa. Seems like a fun copyright time to me...
They are also using MathJax, which I know we are exploring enabling on
Wikipedia (and maybe already have?) They also have an editorial board.
I didn't delve into it deeply but it's not clear to me what having
"full scientific authority over alterations and deletions" means;
though it looks like they are discussing various models of review.
As the librarian who sent this around said.... why wouldn't
mathematicians who were so inclined just contribute to Wikipedia
articles instead? There is some debate about that point on the EoM
talk page. http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Talk:EoM:This_project#EoM_and_WP
This does raise an interesting sourcing issue though -- the published
Encyc. of Math is certainly a reputable source, and should be cited in
the appropriate Wikipedia articles, though I know there's a lot of
debate around whether to cite other wikis as sources. And on the
Encyclopedia of Math wiki talk page there's a debate about whether
they should copy material from Wikipedia!
-- phoebe
Dear all,
please find Wikimedia Deutschland's monthly report for March 2012 on
Meta[1]. If you don't check it out, you may never get to know why political
parties in one of Germany's federal states just can't avoid to answer
WMDE's questions these days or which kinds of German newspapers covered
Wikipedia workshops lately. And well, there's Wikidata and much more
interesting things you wouldn't want to miss!
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Deutsch…
By the way, I linked this month's report both here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports
and here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports
Supposedly, all chapter reports should be found in both places, but they're
not. Do we need both chapter subpages?
Best
Michael
--
Michael Jahn
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit / PR
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
http://wikimedia.de <http://www.wikimedia.de>
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
*Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:*
http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Hello!
As many of you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation is working with The Bridgespan Group to develop a process for allocating movement funds to programs and other projects. As a part of this, the Board of Trustees resolved to create a Funds Dissemination Committee to make recommendations around how funds should be divided and allocated (see the resolution here [1]). Over the next months, we will be developing the FDC structure and clear processes around funds dissemination. As we do this, we invite you to share your thoughts on how this process can best support the movement's mission in a fair and transparent way.
We are hosting a forum for input on the Funds Dissemination Committee Community Engagement page [2] Meta. Visit this page or the FDC main page [3] if you would like to provide your thoughts and to find more information on how to get involved. Please provide your thoughts on Meta, as we are posting this announcement in several places and would like to collect input in one place.
Thanks!
Meera Chary, from The Bridgespan Team
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Community…
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC
___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of the Bridgespan Group ("Bridgespan") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bridgespan shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bridgespan. When addressed to Bridgespan clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
See
http://imgur.com/gallery/v7RRz
I wonder if someone could make and wear that for real? (Also, we need wikipe-tan in that dress, of course!)
O:-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
Hi all,
With all the Wikimedia events it is a problem that keeps coming back:
whether participants do or do not want to be photographed. Often we get to
a very crude binary result: either everything is allowed, or nothing at
all. And still most people seem to violate that simply.
Hence, I was thinking whether a more personal and photo specific option
would be available - allowing people to veto certain pictures before they
get 'really' published. After all, Commons doesn't allow deletion simply
because you dont like the quality or dont want to become public in that
position.
Would it be an option to create a staging area, where people can upload
their event photos of Wikimedia events, and where people can simply veto
their own pictures? The vetoing doesnt have to be water tight, but rather
easy. A password to enter the staging area for that specific event could be
given to the participants where they can check the photos and veto them.
Then we can proceed with 'no veto = published' and mass upload the
non-vetoed photos after a while to Wikimedia Commons.
If we can develop this centrally (and make it available to all Wikimedia
events) or install something on Wikimedia servers that already does this,
that would save a lot of event organizers headaches. Any feedback, anyone
who would be willing and able to pick this up?
Best,
Lodewijk
The following translation are now available for the March 2012
"Wikimedia Highlights", which combine some of the most relevant
information from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia
engineering report for March 2012 with a selection of other important
events from the Wikimedia movement. Help is welcome in spreading the
translated versions among the project communities for these languages,
where this has not already been done. Many thanks to all translators!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012/ar
مقتطفات من تقرير مؤسسة ويكيميديا و اتقرير لقسم التقني في ويكيميديا
لشهر مارس 2012، ومختارات من أحداث هامة من حركة ويكيميديا
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012/fr
Éclairages sur le rapport de la Fondation Wikimédia et le rapport
d’ingénierie Wikimédia pour mars 2012, avec une sélection d’autres
événements importants du mouvement Wikimédia
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012/it
Punti salienti dal rapporto della Wikimedia Foundation e dal rapporto
tecnico Wikimedia di marzo 2012, con una selezione di altre importanti
iniziative dagli eventi di Wikimedia
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012/mk
Позначајни новости од Извештајот на Фондацијата Викимедија и
Техничкиот извештај за март 2012, со избор од други важни настани од
движењето Викимедија
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012/nl
Dit zijn de hoogtepunten uit de Wikimedia Foundationrapportage en de
Wikimedia technische rapportage voor maart 2012, aangevuld met een
selectie van andere belangrijke gebeurtenissen binnen de
Wikimediabeweging
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012/ru
Важные новости из отчёта Фонда Викимедиа за март 2012 и технического
отчёта за март 2012 года, с подборкой важнейших событий движения
Викимедиа
See for https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_March_2012
for partial translations into other languages. Of course further
translations continue to be welcome.
--
Tilman Bayer
Movement Communications
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Dear Wikipedia contributors,
Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to
contribute to Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey
Abeyta, an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. You can read a more detailed description of the project here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…
Those willing to participate in this study will complete a brief online
questionnaire, which is completely anonymous and will take approximately
ten minutes. The questionnaire can be accessed here:
https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s.
The researcher hopes to attain a sample size of at least 100 Wikipedians;
as of now, only 52 have responded. Your contributions to this project's
validity are invaluable!
A final draft of the paper will be made available to the Wikipedia
community.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abeyta(a)gmail.com.
Thank you in advance for your participation!
Hi all,
I'm a long-standing editor/admin/etc. at Wikitravel, though I've been less
active in recent years, mainly due to work and family.
I have, however, been participating in discussions among Wikitravel admins
about our dissatisfaction with our current hosting provider, and what we're
going to do about it. As you know, one of the ideas which has been floated
is to attempt to join WMF. One of the parties to that discussion started a
new Wiki proposal on Meta, and a discussion here.
I'm glad to have the chance to jump in before the discussion gets very far
along. There are some important points to be made:
First, NPOV would probably be a deal-breaker. The travel wiki community
(usually working at Wikitravel) have long used Traveller's Point of View.
This point of view is not neutral at all, but favours the traveller.
Hoteliers, restaurateurs, etc. have different points of view, but for us
it's the traveller's that counts. We're under the impression that there are
other Wikimedia foundation projects which don't use NPOV, and so those of
us favouring approaching WMF have been able to argue that we wouldn't be
forced to use it. If that's wrong then we should probably just give up this
line of exploration and go find another solution.
I personally don't think that a creative interpretation of the concept of
NPOV to make it look like TPOV would do, but of course I'm just one voice.
Still there are others who feel even more strongly on this point.
Second, this is a fairly old and established community, with its own
habits, mores, etc. As with other communities it makes some sense perhaps
to learn about ours a bit before visiting. I think some of our fellow
travellers are a bit concerned about being swamped by the shear size of the
communities involved in other WMF projects (Wikipedia) and rightly so. They
worry that the travel guide community runs a chance of quickly losing
editorial control, and that this will lead not to the desired
consolidation, but rather more unhealthy splintering in the collaborative
travel guide space.
All in all I think there's a pretty good chance that a WMF travel guide
Wiki would stand a good chance at attracting a large part of the community
under the right circumstances. But - it's important to recognize that that
community already exists if one wants to attract it.
thanks!
-mark