Forwarding from foundation-l. This is lovely - bold of HuffPost to include
Wikimedia in its wide-angle view of today's media, and appropriate
considering the way WP helps make sense of the chaos of breaking news.
I also love Tina Brown's quote - "I used to be the impatient type. Now I'm
the serene type. Because how can you be impatient when everything happens
right now, instantly?" - she sounds like a natural Wikipedian...
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner nominated for HuffPost media
game-changer of the year
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Nominated for having successfully taken the organisation to the next
level of professionalism and the influence that gives us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/huffpost-game-changers-wh_n_337129…
(Do of course click through the others.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The idea is to test the speedy deletion process with articles that
shouldn't be speedy deleted.
Links to several of the articles in the process and their fates have
been posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie_treatment
But at present it is skewed towards the ones tagged for deletion,
there are others as yet unpatrolled that won't be disclosed until they
have faced the people who patrol the back end of the unpatrolled
queue.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:38:53 +1100
> From: Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the
> create an article as a newbie challenge
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b8ceeef70910272238p654f1ebdsfe94b15ad6a6fe8b(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:55 AM, George Herbert
> <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I want to personally look at the articles and responses in more depth
>> before I comment more, but this has been exceptionally valuable
>> research.
>
> Yes, can you please post the usernames and the articles that were
> created? If some were speedied, do you have the original text?
> Obviously we shouldn't be having an "omg rampant speedyism" debate if
> the articles were actually speedyable...
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
Guardian stories today about 40 years of the Internet, part of it being
a list of firsts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/internet-history
Apparently Wikipedia got going in 2004? I could have sworn it was
earlier ... Where do they research these things?
Charles
This may apply from time to time to certain of our editors.
Fred
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm
For Release: 10/05/2009
FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements
The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final
revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their
endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act.
The notice incorporates several changes to the FTCs Guides Concerning
the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address
endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as
well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and
endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980.
Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and
convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when
that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results
that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of
the Guides which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a
testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as results not
typical the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.
The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing
principle that material connections (sometimes payments or free
products) between advertisers and endorsers connections that consumers
would not expect must be disclosed. These examples address what
constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or
other word-of-mouth marketers. The revised Guides specify that while
decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger
who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an
endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the
material connections they share with the seller of the product or
service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the
findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by
the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the
advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement like
any other advertisement is deceptive if it makes false or misleading
claims.
Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the
1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as
advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in
an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and
clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false
or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement or for failure to
disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The
revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to
disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements
outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in
social media.
The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help
advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not
binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the
allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission
would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the
FTC Act.
The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice
detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the
Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTCs Web site as a
link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTCs
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20580.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent,
deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to
help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish, visit the FTCs online Complaint Assistant or call
1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil
and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTCs
Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.
Sidewiki is from Google, is a toolbar feature they have come up with for
commenting web pages, and is apparently launched tomorrow:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/help-and-learn-from-others-as-you.ht…
So now the entire Web gets talkpages. Sadly this doesn't actually make
the entire Web a wiki.
Charles
Strategic Planning office hours tomorrow - Tuesdays from 20:00-21:00
UTC, which is: 1-2pm PDT, 4-5pm EDT.
This is one of those rare and fun occasions when Eugene and Philippe
are co-located, so maybe we'll even turn on the skype camera or
something.... no promises, I'm not even sure if Skype works in the new
office yet. :-)
We meet in #wikimedia-strategy on the freenode network. You can
access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net/ and filling
in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be
prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. Another
option is http://chat.wikizine.org.
For more information about IRC clients, go to the Wikipedia entry on
IRC or the Meta page on Wikimedia IRC.
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategic Planning
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
i'm in need of some help. there are a number of proposals which
recommend the use of java and flash, and, unfortunately, the java
applet advocates are alarmingly.... unreasonable and vocal.
the deployment of any programming language as a means to express
and/or extend wikimedia pages is so at odds with the principle of a
universally editable encyclopedia that i am having great difficulty
even comprehending why anyone would advocate them, in direct
contravention of the key strategic goals of wikipedia.
here's articles essentially calling for the same thing: a means to do
interactive / animated wikipedia. the first three are great - the
second three are incomprehensibe:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Text_or_Syntax_driven_Char…http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Inline_SVG_preferencehttp://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Foundations_for_Interactiv…http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Add_OpenLaszlo/Java_suppor…http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Java_applet_supporthttp://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Allow_upload_of_flash_anim…
the reason why i'm asking for help is because i have a tendency to
shout and jump up and down when presented with things that are complex
(multi-faceted) but blindingly obvious to me. i tend to find that
things that are blindingly obvious to me aren't so blindingly obvious
to others, and the "java applets" proposal is one such example. i'm
finding that, like those kid's toys with the buttons on top, where you
press one button and the others go down, the advocates of the "java
applets" proposal cannot comprehend more than one idea at a time,
cannot take on board the "overview", and keep picking "individual
holes" whilst ignoring other negative aspects. every time i tackle
one issue, in bite-size comprehensible chunks, they go "ahh, but!"
and i can't deal with this kind of approach.
so i would very much appreciate if other people could pitch in and
provide their views on the subject. of course, if you think it's a
_good_ idea to make contributing to wikipedia be _more_ elitist than
it is already perceived to be, then i will simply be jumping up and
down with a larger audience to entertain.
overall: the goal is to open up wikipedia to a wider audience, and if
that can be achieved whilst at the same time taking advantage of what
technology has to offer (such as the new WikiReader), _great_. i
trust that anyone reading this shares that same view and will help
weed out wikipedia proposals that are contrary to that goal.
l.