In a message dated 2/13/2008 1:35:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
failure.to.communicate(a)gmail.com writes:
At minimum it might
be wise if all admins could view IP addresses themselves--this whole
allowing-open-proxies-until-we-discover-them policy is an invitation to
abuse.>>
-------------------------------
I do and would strenuously object to any additional powers being given to
admins. Admins are already viewed as a superior type of human, when they are
also routinely called "janitors". Unless we have a system of
automatic-adminship, then we should not be expanding powers.
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
In a message dated 2/13/2008 10:31:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
refero.relata(a)gmail.com writes:
> You mean automatic de-adminship?
RR>>
---------------------------
Yes that too!
We could set up a <s>trap</s> test. Do some trivial, non-vandal edit to an
article and if an admin blocks you for vandalism, they get de-sysopped !
Sounds like a big ole' bag of drama and fun ;)
Of course I'm joking! Don't block me!
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
In a message dated 2/13/2008 2:21:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
We ban people for disruption and seeking to out the identity of
pseudonymous WP accounts regardless of who is or is suspected of being
on the other side of them.>>>
--------------------------------------------
Which seems silly. Why should we give a care if someone tries to publish
who is an anonymous IP ?
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
In a message dated 2/12/2008 10:57:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
The foundation is pretty small, so I imagine everyone gets a "big title".>>>
------------------
Hmmm sounds like the "we can't give you a raise, but we 'can' make you
Senior Vice President..."
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
Hi all, You may remember sometime back some suggested the addition of a
Tutorial namespace. I'd like to touch up on that again because I will soon
be merging the best of the content written on helpwiki(now shutdown) back
into Wikipedia(once I get a few things sorted out). You can see the content
that will be merged here:
http://chris.hostsnake.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page and I'd just like to see
what everyone else thinks. Also if you did contribute to Helpwiki and you
haven't agreed to release your content under the GNUFDL can you please drop
a note on my talkpage or I won't be able to merge your content back onto
Wikipedia.
---
Chris
Wikipedia User:Chris G
I just was looking at
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-primarytracker-html,0,…
and saw that in one of the boxes on the page, the word
"superdelegates" was a hyperlink - imagine my surprise when I clicked
on it and it took me to the Wikipedia article.
Does anyone worry that if newspapers make a habit of doing that, their
readers will look at Wikipedia as being as authoritative as the
newspaper and not bother to check into the article's accuracy? After
all, if the paper considers it authoritative enough to link to, it
must be so, right?
Angela
Anthere wrote:
> When some board members of your organization are publicly accused to
> misuse the donors money to promote their own business, how do they answer?
Since you asked, my suggestion is to simply say "They don't" -- & provide detailed evidence that this is not the case.
Let's look at the travel budget, since that is the one which is appears to be attracting the most controversy. If all of the air travel is done by Economy Class (you know, the way the rest of us travel), then say so. If it isn't, then make it the rule from this moment forward. I've travelled Economy & Business class in the past, & given my druthers I'd want to travel Business -- especially for those long journeys between continents across those wide oceans. But whenever someone insists on flying Business or better on the Foundation's money, they need to be told, "Business class to this place costs 5 times or more than Economy. If we send you Business Class, that means either 4 other people can't travel where we need them to go or we take the money from a project that is at least as important -- if not more so -- than you."
This applies to accomidation for staff and board members while on the road. If the rule is that people either stay with friends or at economical hotels, tell us -- or again make it the rule. I don't think anyone expects that travelling staff & board members stay at flophouses, but if the board can prove that they are being frugal with the funds it will attract more donations. (And if you need help with finding Wikimedians willing to offer a bed and a meal to travelling staffers, tell the membership & let's get something organized.)
Recently I've been doing business with a local non-profit run by the Catholic Church. I think it's fair to say that the Catholic Church in their operations is nowhere near as transparent as the Wikimedia Foundation. For the work this charity has been performing on my account (my wife & I have just adopted a child), they charged us a serious amount of for everything -- IIRC, somewhere around $15,000, and the two of us are not rich people. The folks at the charity were not in the least apologetic for that amount; the director at one point said in a general meeting, "The offices we are using are donated, the furniture we use is donated -- every dollar we get we try to put it towards providing services for the birth mothers in terms of housing, food, medical care and counselling both before and after the child's birth."
I honestly hope that every employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is not only professing but doing their jobs with an attitude like that -- where every dollar is going to support one of the Wikimedia projects, & keep them flourishing. And while I'll admit that I have my reservations, I believe that this is the case. However, if this is not the case, then there is a serious problem here that no amount of PR is going to solve.
Geoff
</delurk>
(apologies if this appears twice)
Anthere wrote:
> When some board members of your organization are publicly accused to
> misuse the donors money to promote their own business, how do they answer?
Since you asked, my suggestion is to simply say "They don't" -- & provide detailed evidence that this is not the case.
Let's look at the travel budget, since that is the one which is appears to be attracting the most controversy. If all of the air travel is done by Economy Class (you know, the way the rest of us travel), then say so. If it isn't, then make it the rule from this moment forward. I've travelled Economy & Business class in the past, & given my druthers I'd want to travel Business -- especially for those long journeys between continents across those wide oceans. But whenever someone insists on flying Business or better on the Foundation's money, they need to be told, "Business class to this place costs 5 times or more than Economy. If we send you Business Class, that means either 4 other people can't travel where we need them to go or we take the money from a project that is at least as important -- if not more so -- than you."
This applies to accomidation for staff and board members while on the road. If the rule is that people either stay with friends or at economical hotels, tell us -- or again make it the rule. I don't think anyone expects that travelling staff & board members stay at flophouses, but if the board can prove that they are being frugal with the funds it will attract more donations. (And if you need help with finding Wikimedians willing to offer a bed and a meal to travelling staffers, tell the membership & let's get something organized.)
Recently I've been doing business with a local non-profit run by the Catholic Church. I think it's fair to say that the Catholic Church in their operations is nowhere near as transparent as the Wikimedia Foundation. For the work this charity has been performing on my account (my wife & I have just adopted a child), they charged us a serious amount of for everything -- IIRC, somewhere around $15,000, and the two of us are not rich people. The folks at the charity were not in the least apologetic for that amount; the director at one point said in a general meeting, "The offices we are using are donated, the furniture we use is donated -- every dollar we get we try to put it towards providing services for the birth mothers in terms of housing, food, medical care and counselling both before and after the child's birth."
I honestly hope that every employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is not only professing but doing their jobs with an attitude like that -- where every dollar is going to support one of the Wikimedia projects, & keep them flourishing. And while I'll admit that I have my reservations, I believe that this is the case. However, if this is not the case, then there is a serious problem here that no amount of PR is going to solve.
Geoff
There was a posting some time ago, about jobs at Wikipedia in San Francisco.
I had posted a comment there, to which I don't think anyone really had a
reasonable answer. But I'm still interested in what the answer might be.
The jobs posted all had high-sounding titles and responsibilities. I didn't
see any jobs posted that were lower or mid-level. Does that mean that all
those people are moving from Florida to San Francisco? Or B, that those jobs
will be filled from newspaper ads? Or C that at Wikipedia San Francisco,
everyone has a job with a big title?
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)