"we must raise $14 million" 14, not 16? przykuta

On 9 December 2010 10:00, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote: I agree. It is very unfortunate that we are now stuck with such similar names for such different things, but we do need to get it right. Sue is *not* the ED of Wikipedia. She's not even the ED of Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Use it on banners and they will be know, but not by "Wikipedia directors" przykuta

On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)frontier.com> wrote: That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you.

2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>om>: I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and its projects. Nathan

OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it. I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard the word "Wikimedia". There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient explanations. -- Zack Exley Chief Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I didn't like the assumption of bad faith earlier on part of the team, the fundraising team [1] as you would note, consists of Community members from different locations and backgrounds. I am from India, Moushirah is from Egypt, Dan and James are community members who also work remotely, all of us are community members working on the fundraiser together. Philippe himself has been a long-standing community member for the past few years before joining the foundation. The implication of an Us Vs. them mentality here, is counter-productive to our common goal. The banner in question was created yesterday and barely went live for a very short time before MZ mentioned it on the list. It was rectified within hours once there was an objection raised, this I thought, was an example of the community working together. Also, as someone who has a different background than the majority of people on the list, I can speak to the recognizability factor of Wikipedia Vs. Wikimedia. I can personally attest to uncertainty between the association of Wikimedia with Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I agree that the we should inform the readers about the difference and the relation between the two, but you also must understand that there are constraints to what we can do with a banner. We have a limited amount of space on each banner to connect with our readers, Jimmy's appeal as the Wikipedia Founder has worked incredibly well so far, so have the editor appeals, we took some liberty with the intoduction and took the shorter approach in light of direct statistical evidence between our options. It was never our intention to deceive or imply anything beyond the facts. My only issue is with the assumption of Bad faith on our part, we did the best considering the data that was available. In light of the reaction, changes were made as quickly as possible and the differences clarified. Regards Salmaan Haroon User:Theo10011 Community Associate [1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Staff <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Staff> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM, KIZU Naoko &lt;aphaia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Zack Exley &lt;zexley(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: They say you are not really part of the tech team until you have broken the site. I guess you are not really part of the Wikimedia community until you've got a whole thread on some Wikimedia mailing list criticizing your actions... ;) So...welcome to the Wikimedia community Zack! ;-) Thank you and the fundraising team for a quick reaction and thorough explanations. Best, Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

On 10 December 2010 11:20, Anirudh Bhati &lt;anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: We had something like this in the 2008 and 2009 appeals - 2007 was very "Wikimedia-heavy", but these ones had a single section in each. We currently have the odd situation where a local chapter form: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA1/GB http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA1/AU is actually slightly clearer on who WM are than the main one: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA1/en/US Putting a comment under the donation box in the sidebar might work better than adding it to the end, I think - it means we don't have to change it each time we change the appeal. We can also adapt it to mention the local chapter, where relevant, without changing the text - like WMAU have, here. -- - Andrew Gray   andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Benjamin Lees &lt;emufarmers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No one replied to this. Is that a no?

Delphine Ménard, 10/12/2010 08:51: +1 :-) Just two small points. Zack Exley, 09/12/2010 18:24: This is because the campaign is centred on Wikipedia only and specifically on Jimbo (who is famous thanks to Wikipedia). Hopefully the contributors appeals will also say something about Wikimedia and other Wikimedia projects and provide some banners which won't look out of place on sister projects. Andrew Garrett, 10/12/2010 00:32: wrote: allocated tired of bringing in team requiring missing Although some details may be improved, I think that this isn't true at all. A week is not much, and it's normal to test banners and appeals in English and on en.wiki/USA before translating and creating banners for every wiki in every language for every country. Chapters are putting a lot of people in the fundraising, as well (WM-DE, WM-FR, WM-NL, WM-SR and maybe WM-UK and more also some paid staff), and I don't see why you should put this in terms of conflicts between better and worse teams instead of productive collaboration (as I see it). By the way, although there isn't any 2009 fundraising report, when the fundraising is closed we'll hopefully be able to compare results in various countries, and also 2010 vs. 2009 results for each country where we have 2009 data. Nemo

Yeah, it's not like it's even in a graphic, it's a text page -- easy fix. But I'd suggest adding " Foundation" in there too. As it stands presently it looks like the site was hacked.

2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko &lt;aphaia(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies—"Senior Editor," "Editor Second Class," "Senior Chief Petty Editor"—this is bound to confuse the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the difference. It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American staff and cry "cultural ignorance," but I'm not—I know that plenty of people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even if it's talking to foreigners on IRC. I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki? Austin

2010/12/9 Huib Laurens &lt;sterkebak(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: I've received this email...

I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the list... But that seems to stopped working today? 2010/12/9 Noein &lt;pronoein(a)gmail.com&gt; -- Regards, Huib "Abigor" Laurens Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On 9 December 2010 23:03, K. Peachey &lt;p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au&gt; wrote: Gaining money through deception is a crime pretty much everywhere. I doubt this would actually count as gaining money through deception, though. The fact being misrepresented would probably be considered immaterial. You would also struggle to prove that the donor wouldn't have donated if they had realised what Sue's actual job title was. I don't know the details of Australian laws on fraud, but I expect at least one of those points would be enough to avoid any criminal convictions. Let's not get sensational. The error is bad, but it isn't criminal.

Michael Snow wrote: Calling Jimmy "Wikipedia founder" was already incredibly close to crossing the line. Calling Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director" clearly crosses the line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree. While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism. MZMcBride

Michael Snow wrote: The line between what is and is not acceptable or defensible. Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales We should not rehash the "co-founder" vs. "founder" debate again, but I think it's safe to say that there have been reasonable people who have objected to the past Jimmy banners using the word "founder." Assuming good faith is what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong. This is a fairly well established principle on Wikimedia wikis. K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia that he or she believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting that there is ambiguity here. In any case, I'm told that the banners are being changed right now, so this particular issue is likely going to be moot in very short order. MZMcBride

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Michael Snow &lt;wikipedia(a)frontier.com&gt; wrote: No, I decided not to start debating yet again in this thread since it's already been discussed weather or not we should have falsely worded banners, and I'm sure there are other people than my self that are more than happy to have such a discussion where I would prefer not to. What I did do was point out possible side effects for chapters should these banners be ran in their areas using Australia as a example since being a resident here, I have a some what limited knowledge on our laws, Which from previous discussions on WMF mailing lists previously and elsewhere, I have a understanding most places have similar ones in place. And as such believed that was very relevant to the subject being discussed at hand. -p858snake/peachey

On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, Michael Snow wrote: Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a "Wikileaks point" appears Something like "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Wikileaks approaches 1" to refer to the chance of ending up discussing censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate. What do you think ? Anthere

On 12/14/10 2:39 PM, KIZU Naoko wrote: Haha, no. It is far too similar to Godwin Law. It would be plagiarism (#evil). But I stand up by my claim. I would be curious to see how it evolves. Any mention of censorship ---> reference to Wikileaks Ant

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, John Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: For the record, I don't think that this arrangement is working well. There are a lot of people working on the fundraiser, both Wikimedia staff and hundreds of volunteers from the community. The Foundation has allocated substantial staff and resources to running a campaign that is agile and data-driven. In the United States, this has had a strong result -- US editors stopped seeing the Jimmy banners (which people are getting tired of despite their effectiveness) a week ago. Elsewhere in the world, bringing in the new editor/Sue appeal banners has been held up by this sort of bureaucracy. If we believe (as I do) that the central fundraising team is the best team for the job, then we should give them the ability to roll out their best work quickly, without going through the bureaucratic quagmire of requiring chapter approval for each special region. The rest of the world is missing out on the best that they can do. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/

2010/12/9 Huib Laurens &lt;sterkebak(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: You are definitely not on moderation, and I don't see any record of you ever being on moderation. If you have any doubts about whether a message of yours has gone through, you can contact me or any other administrator to check. Austin

For the record, MZMcBride did let me know that he was sending a "nastygram". So while I disagree with his language choice, he checked first. \ pb On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: