Two board meetings were held this month. Some highlights from the
meetings follow. Please see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/June_7%2C_2005 and
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/June_9%2C_2005 for the
full details.
The first meeting was, unusually, attended by the entire board. The
second was even more unusual in that it consisted of the entire board
with the exception of Jimbo.
We have approved two changes to the bylaws:
1) elected terms shall be two years rather than one, and
2) there will be no difference between contributing and volunteer
member representatives.
Other proposed changes were informally agreed upon, but will not be
officially approved prior to a legal review.
Work on the contacts for Mandriva's planned distribution of Wikipedia
is ongoing. The Portuguese Wikipedia might now be included, in
addition to English and French.
Jimmy is meeting Eben Moglen on 15 June to talk about proposed changes
to the GFDL.
In terms of hardware, Kate has helped to determine what we need from
Yahoo. This is expected to be set up next month. Details from the
system administration team on what we would like from other potential
sponsors would be appreciated.
We have approximately US$50,000 in the PayPal account. The fundraising
drive will postponed until after the elections. Feedback from the
sysadmins on what we are going to buy and when is required before the
fundraising drive.
Angela
--
Angela Beesley
WikimediaFoundation.org
I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and "free speech"?
While neutrality (NPOV) is a central policy at Wikimedia (and probably its very best policy!), the Wikimedia Foundation is not neutral about *everything*. There are some things about which it takes a very clear stance, and one of those things is freedom.
When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
On a practical level, the decision may have been more about promoting Ogg Vorbis that about real legal worries about MP3. But that is valid as well. Personally, I agree completely with Jimbo's principled decision to disallow MP3. That is because "free content" is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy of Wikimedia.
For details, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sound#File_formats and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html.
When it comes to the Chinese Wikinews, however, the Wikimedia Foundation has not stood up (so far) for free content.
Here the problem is not "free beer" but "free speech." To dely or deny setting up *any* Wikimedia project because of the fear or threat of censorship is something that the Foundation should be ashamed of. This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia.
Do we really believe in free speech? Or is the only policy Wikimedia really cares about one of "free beer" (i.e. in the case of Ogg Vorbis, the legal technicalities of open source software)? Open software is terribly important, but it is no more important that providing an outlet for people to write free news stories in Chinese.
Far more than enough users have already requested the Chinese project. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Chinese.28zh.29. Some are mainland Chinese, others are part of the Chinese diaspora numbering tens of millions, people who have no worries about government censorship. All have been jointly denied, up to now, a useful project, only because of fears of censorship.
Are those fears justified? Perhaps. But the more relevant question is: Even if the fears are justified, does that allow Wikimedia to be untrue to its value of "free" projects (which includes "freedom of speech")? Furthermore, because *some* Chinese users fear censorship, should the project be delayed or denied to all?
This is also an issue of power. Yes, power. Do we believe in our own strength? Wikimedia has become, quite unexpectedly, a very well-known, well-respected, and influential organization all over the world. That means that even if the threats censorship are real, and even if there is some censorship in the short term, there is every reason to believe that such censorship will not stand for long. Just as blocking was lifted from the Chinese Wikipedia, it will be lifted, eventually, from Wikinews. The Chinese government will not be able, for long, to justify its opposition to Wikimedia projects. But we have to believe in ourselves, and in the fundamental value of free speech.
To conclude (and I apologize for this being so long), Wikimedia today is a project that is "free" as in free beer. But as long as Chinese Wikinews is delayed or denied, Wikimedia is *not* free as in free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation must take an absolutely clear, non-negotiable position that the fear or threat of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with any existing or proposed Wikimedia Project. "Free speech" is no less important that "free beer."
Dovi Jacobs
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Dovi Jacobs schreef:
> I suggest the following:
>
> Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project."
If I understand you correctly, you say that Wikimedia projects
shouldn't be censored in any way. But isn't censorship a very
important part of (at least) Wikipedia? Since all POV remarks in
articles are consistently removed. We only allow NPOV contributions.
Isn't that censorship as well?
Sincerely,
Fruggo
I have started a FAQ about local Wikimedia chapters at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ with 10 of the
questions that I know have been asked a lot.
If you know of any more frequently asked questions, or if you have
questions yourself, or if you are able to answer some of the existing
questions, please help with the creation of this page.
I am hoping it will become a useful resource, both for those involved
with current chapters, those wanting to start a new chapter, and also
for users of Wikimedia projects who are confused about the entire
concept of chapters.
Thanks.
Angela.
Deutsch folgt. English follows
----------------------------------------
Un peu de douceur dans ce monde de brutes.
Suite à l'action probante de Arnomane, contributeur allemand, auprès
de l'ESA à plusieurs reprises, concernant l'utilisation de leurs
contenus, notamment des photos, Wikimedia France a obtenu un
rendez-vous afin de présenter les projets Wikimedia auprès de la
Division de la Communication (Production iconographique et multimédia)
de l'ESA à Paris, le 27 juin.
Le but de ce rendez-vous est d'effectuer une première prise de contact
informelle, de présenter les projets Wikimédia et d'envisager les
bases d'une collaboration future.
--------------
Nachdem Arnomane mit der ESA viel und endlich erfolgreich gesprochen
hat, wegen der Benützung ihre Inhalte, nämlich Bilder, Wikimedia
France hat ein Termin mit der Division de la Communication (Production
iconographique et multimédia) der ESA in Paris am 27. Juni fest
gestellt.
Das Ziel dieses Termins ist erst nur informellen Kontakt mit der ESA
machen, die Wikimedia Projekte präsentieren, und eine mögliche
künftige Kollaboration zu bauen.
(Vergib mir fürs schlechte Deutsch ;-) )
--------------
Thanks to Arnomane's (German contributor) long and finally fruitful
efforts to get in touch with the ESA concerning the use of their
contents, especially images, Wikimedia France has a meeting planned
with the Division of Communication (Iconographic and multimedia
production) of the ESA in Paris, on June 27th.
The goal of this meeting is first to make informal contact with the
ESA, present the Wikimedia projects and layout the basis of a possible
future collaboration.
A+/Grüsse/Cheers,
Delphine
--
~notafish
Dear Board,
the current Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws specify that, if one of the
board seats should become vacant, the remaining Board can appoint
someone to fill these seats.
I'd like to ask the Board what its intentions are
- should one of the community-elected trustees resign
- should one of the non-elected positions (Tim and Michael) become vacant.
The reason I raise this question is simple. Many potential candidates
have stated that they will not stand for election because they support
the current Board as it is, however, that they would stand if more than
2 seats were available. For this reason, I believe it would be bad if,
as per the Bylaws, the Board were to appoint someone (whoever comes in
third in this year's election, or whoever they trust the most, or
anything like that) should one of the seats become vacant. This is
especially true if, as has been suggested, Board terms are extended to
two years.
I would therefore appreciate assurance that any community members of the
Board will be again chosen by the community in an election should such a
situation arise -- perhaps with one notable exception: if someone were
to resign shortly before an election (i.e. within 3 months), it would be
undesirable, I think, to have all the organizational overhead of a
separate election just for that brief period. However, in such a
situation, my preference would be to leave the seat vacant, or, if it is
necessary for legal reasons, to appoint a trusted person purely for the
purpose of filling the seat (and perhaps breaking ties in votes).
I would like to know what your thoughts are on the matter.
Thanks,
Erik
I had hoped Jimmy's proposal about Wikicouncil would be public before
I published these notes, but since that hasn't happened and there has
now been another meeting since this one, I wanted to make sure these
notes were published before those of the meetings held this week.
A Board meeting was held on IRC on May 24
(<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/May_24%2C_2005>) with
Jimmy Wales, Florence Devouard, and Angela Beesley, primarily to
follow up on discussions about the upcoming elections and official
positions that were discussed on May 16
(<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/May_16%2C_2005>).
* There is a proposal for a Wikicouncil which Jimmy is going to
post to the mailing list. Florence, Jimmy, Arne, Elisabeth, and
Delphine met on IRC last week to discuss the roles of the council and
whether chapters should be represented on it.
* Angela proposed having an executive board of five members, with
an additional three members that would be elected. The three
non-executive board members would be involved in basically everything,
but the executive could overrule them where necessary. Jimmy found
this concept interesting, but was unsure of the legality of it. It was
put forward that since this would require a change of the bylaws upon
which legal advice would need to be sought, that the next board will
remain at 2 elected members.
* Known objections to official positions were discussed.
* Potential candidates for positions were discussed. Jimmy will
make appointments taking into account this discussion. Potential
positions put on hold for now included Quarto editor, Partnerships,
and Translation.
* The next meeting will be Tuesday 7 June at 20:00 UTC.
If you would like to comment on this meeting or discuss any of the
points raised here, please do so at [[meta:talk:Wikimedia Board
meetings]] or on this list.
Angela
Angela Beesley
Wikimedia Foundation
What do you think about promotion Wiki in global media by send info
about two millions Wikipedia articles? It (2M) will be perhaps first
half of July or end of June. IMHO this promotion will be good before
Wikimania 2005.
Przykuta
I bought that domains. When Board wants to transfer it to Wikimedia
Foundation, just tell me and I'll give transfer code to you.
At least, it would be used for Serbian local chapter. vikipedija.org
should be an alias for sr.wikipedia.org or to become a portal for
languages which write Wikipedia in such way.
vikimedija.org should be used for Serbian local chapter or should be a
portal for local chapters which write Wikimedia in such way.
Hi,
I've just added a proposal on meta.wikimedia.org: Wikitution - A
Free European Constitution.
The citizens of France and The Netherlands did not accept the
proposed european constitution in two national polls. Europe is
facing a serious crisis. It needs a free and democratic constitution,
to which everybody can contribute and which will be accepted by the
great majority of all citizens in Europe.
The site is up and running: http://www.wikitution.org
I set up the wiki and registered the domain name without knowing that
Merlin of Eragon proposed "Wiki constitution/political theory" with
the same domain name. I am sorry for that. The problem in europe is
urgent and we need a solution soon. I hope that we can cooperate.
I think that this is a temporary project. We cannot debate about a
constitution for years, but need to come to an end in two or three
years. If the project will run successfully I foresee much traffic
and great organizational work, which I cannot do by myself. So I
would be glad, if the project would be a temporary wikimedia-project
and if some more experienced mediawiki-users will join the team.
Thanks!
Jan Ulrich Hasecke