Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> It strikes me as absolutely impossible for *anyone* to exert influence
>> over our content. Our very development model ensurees that.
>
> Could you clarify this point please?
I think what he meant is that it is absolutely possible for *everyone*
to exert influence over our content. They boil down to the same thing,
just phrased differently.
--Michael Snow
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Dan Grey wrote:
>
>
>>Is it reasonable to believe that donations will increase in line with
>>readers? Has anyone analysed the available data to see if this is
>>happening?
>>
>>
>I think it is reasonable _to an extent_, yes. It is far from certain.
>Mav can perhaps give you some statistics on this, but I believe he is
>more pessimistic than I am about this.
>
I would add that the correlation between readership and donations is
more apparent during the periods when we are explicitly having a
fundraiser. We may be able to support the sites to a large extent that
way for now, but having fundraisers too frequently will desensitize
people to them. Getting into a position where we have to run intrusive
sitewide notices every other month would lead to a vicious cycle of
diminishing donations leading to declining performance.
Mav can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure routine donations
during non-fundraising periods are nowhere near enough to maintain
normal operations. We need to do a lot more to establish ongoing revenue
streams, whether it's through this partnership or others. I've passed
along and pushed for a few ideas in that regard. It would be nice to
have more people doing that, and then we could more easily dispense with
those to which people end up raising objections.
Volunteer to help Danny finding grants and preparing applications. Get
the Wikimedia Foundation added to your employer's matching program for
charitable donations if you have one. Do some research and come up with
other ideas to produce income. Just because we're a nonprofit doesn't
mean we can disregard the importance of money.
--Michael Snow
>> It's simple... this cannot be like a book in which
>in
>> one page is presented all to the reader. Every thing
>
>> must have it's own page (adjective, noun, etc.)
>which
>> can treate in good manner that problem. How about a
>> 5000 characters long page about Masculine gender.
>This
>> can be useful!
>
>It definetly cannot be like a book. It must have
>enough space. This is a complex idea of project which
>can take a lot of time. We must have persons which
>know what are they writing about, else can be created
>confusion.This is like in any other Wikimedia project. If we stop persons to contribute we cannot call this Wikimedia project and open source and all the other things.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikigrammar
> The wordbook that the previous commenter is proposing already exists: Wiktionary. Each Wiktionary edition contains entries for words in many different ?languages, and each of those pages contain translations into many different languages. For example, the English Wiktionary has an entry on the German word Abnahme, which is translated to abatement, whose entry lists translations in Finnish, French, German, and other languages. The entry on abatement also links to the abatement entry at the Italian Wiktionary, which translates the word as "ribasso."
> – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 03:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The connexion from one language to another in words is not the idea of this project. The primary idea is to create a multilingual and multigramatical gramatic workbook. The dictionary part is normal to be liked out to Wiktionary.
Wiktionary also contains a begining of learning languages. This can be moved to Wikigrammar but is not the primary functionality again. We don't have - as far as I know - a collection of grammars, not even the English one in one place, structurated by chapters (like in school) which can help us. I will (I don't know when I have time) try to start an example of what I mean by creating the structure of one language's grammar.
Mike
> It's simple... this cannot be like a book in which
in
> one page is presented all to the reader. Every thing
> must have it's own page (adjective, noun, etc.)
which
> can treate in good manner that problem. How about a
> 5000 characters long page about Masculine gender.
This
> can be useful!
It definetly cannot be like a book. It must have
enough space. This is a complex idea of project which
can take a lot of time. We must have persons which
know what are they writing about, else can be created
confusion.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
This should be added as notice in localized projects.
I mean that if there are Vlax Romany speakers in
Hungary, we should have a notice in Hungarian
Wikipedia and other projects about this survey. I've
seen that there exists a sitenotice about this in
ro.wikipedia;
Also, this must be translated at least in that
languages if not in more.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Another thing... why not at Wikibooks someone asked.
It's simple... this cannot be like a book in which in one page is presented all to the reader. Every thing must have it's own page (adjective, noun, etc.) which can treate in good manner that problem. How about a 5000 characters long page about Masculine gender. This can be useful!
Mike
In the context of the request for a new language Wikipedia in Vlax Romany. This questionaire is meant to help the community to see how many Vlax Romany speakers already use Wikipedia. Please translate this in your language. We should have at least translated in languages of countries in which exist Vlax Romany speakers.
Can you read, write or speak Vlax Romany?
Add yourself at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vlax_Romany_Survey
Dear all,
after a very tight vote within the jury, Boston has been chosen to
host Wikimania 2006, the second International Wikimedia Conference.
All information about the location can be found at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Boston
We wish to thank all participants for the work they have put into
their bids, and especially the supporters of Toronto whose city made
it to the shortlist. Results of the vote were 5 for Boston to 4 for
Toronto, and one abstention.
Definite dates and agenda to be confirmed shortly.
Best,
Delphine
PS. Sorry for the post in English to other lists, thank you for
translating it if needed.
PS. Désolée pour l'annonce en anglais. Bitte die Nachricht auf
Englisch vergeben. Disculpe per la notizia en inglese. ;-)
--
~notafish
On 22/10/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> For some reason I can't post to the foundation-l list... Feel free to
> forward this there if you want.
>
> On 10/22/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22/10/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, but I think mostly because Amazon is under a boycott by RMS for
> > > their patent policies.
> >
> > Reading back through posts from that time, most the objections seem to
> > be about the "slippery slope" - a quite understandable view. It's also
> > notable that the income from the Amazon was pathetic - it would be
> > nice if there was some assurance that this 1-Click business might
> > actually be worthwhile before we try it.
>
>
> They *are* doing a 6 month trial first. I think the revenue would be a lot
> better from this. I say this as someone who is running a mirror of
> Wikipedia with google ads on it.
>
> > I also note that the recent posts on the wiki are against this idea.
> > The legal issues are very far from clear, and it's also apparent that
> > there is opposition to this.
>
>
> As one of the people most skeptical of this under that legal issues thread,
> I'd say it's pretty indisputable that it's legal. The only real question is
> whether or not there are tax consequences.
>
> > I think it was rather presumptious of the board to "announce" this
> > without consulting editors first. The board may have "signed up" to a
> > trial of this, but *we* haven't, and I think the board may well have a
> > hard time stopping editors removing this advertisting from the site.
>
>
> Answers Corporation is a public company, and there's some evidence that this
> deal might have affected the price of the stock. Part of the agreement was
> probably to keep the conversations confidential until a deal was made.
>
> In any case, I believe that this is exactly the type of decision the board
> should be making on its own. If you don't like what the board is doing, by
> all means tell them, and then elect new members at the next election if they
> don't do a better job. But in my opinion the board needs the autonomy to
> make these decisions on its own.