Your comments below have nothing to do with what you said earlier. I
appreciate the value of translation, and actually worked as a professional
translator for twenty years. This is not about translation. You suggested companies
pay the Foundation or (individuals) to translate articles about them. Once
money changes hands over content, the question becomes whether the Foundation or
the translator has a responsibility to ensure that the content is
satisfactory to that client. The exchange of money can be viewed as a contractual
agreement of sorts. Assuming we do that, it is the corporation that determines the
content of the article, not the community. It is clear that this is a
violation of NPOV.
In general, I am also opposed to people paying for articles. I think that
this will be the first step toward a breakdown of a volunteer community. Imagine
this scenario. If Danny is getting paid to translate or write articles,
maybe I should too. Maybe I wont even write an article until I get paid for it.
In just four and a half years, we have been highly successful because we are
a volunteer organization devoted to creating free content--not a
translator's bulletin board. What you and Gerard are proposing will harm the volunteer
spirit of the project by creating unnecessary hierarchies within it of paid
writers and volunteers. This is completely against everything we have succeeded
in doing so far.
Danny
In a message dated 8/18/2005 8:27:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sabine_cretella(a)yahoo.it writes:
>If a company pays us to write or feature an article,
>does that mean that we are beholden to them to provide their POV as well?
>
no - since whoever wants such a translation knows that the article is
already npov - so he wants this content translated and not re-written to
his/her favour
>What
>about if a political or religious group tries to do the same thing?
>
see above: any article for wikipedia is there to be improved - also the
translated ones ...
>To what
>degree will corporate or other moneys be used as leverage against NPOV.
>
>I am confident that the community will reject this idea.
>
>
well ... see: if there is a translated article and you don't even know
about this and then it is uploaded it is treated like any contribution -
people will have a look at it and say it is fine or modify it
In a message dated 8/18/2005 10:52:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com writes:
As Delphine said, there are things from the spirit of wiki that we can
and should carry over - transparency, volunteerism
(self-identification for tasks), assume good faith. Others, like
phantom authority and rollback (anyone/everyone having veto-power)
don't have a place at the board/officer level. To sooner we realize
not all wiki concepts map over, the better.
Thank you, Andrew and Delphine for pointing this out. It is important that
people realize that beyond being a pleasant website and a friendly community,
this is also a legal entity with financial and other obligations. Jimmy and
the Board bear enormous responsibility. They have to deal with other
organizations, including large corporations such as Google and Yahoo, they have to face
potential legal threats, and they have to broker and approve deals which
provide us with much needed financial support. I am quite impressed by how
transparent they have been, but I also understand when the nature of certain
things in the works requires a certain degree of discretion. I know that they will
continue to keep up the outstanding work that they have done so far.
Danny
Anthere:
> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
> situation, and make suggestions to improve.
.....
> Well, this is also one of our problems. We are also struggling with more
> pressing issues. We would also benefit of help, because we also lack
> wo-man power. And as you mention, taking care of communication could
> also be a full-time job and aside from Jimbo, both Angela and I also
> have one of those.
First noone said the board is not working hard.
I think we all know that and appreciate it.
> Are you yourself ready to help distribute the information ?
> How many times did you yourself copied an information mentionned on that
list on your own village pump ?
> How many times did you help translate the foundation website or the Quarto
?
> How many times did you yourself provide us information that might be
useful ?
Please do not say that others can not comment unless they spent more time on
the issue,
they spent lots of time on other issues and still have an opinion about
this.
One of the virtues of a democracy is that everyone can participate in a
discussion
even when they are outsiders (or seen as such by the insiders), even when
they are (perceived as) unreasonable or one-sided.
I try to give reasonable, balanced comments and suggestions, so please do
not tell me I am de facto an outsider on this issue.
This whole discussion is not about blaming anyone.
It discusses where improvements could be made.
> Eactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ?
> Please cite some examples of issues where we have been failing ?
Since you asked what could be more transparent, three examples:
To keep close to the subject at hand: the way that new officers were
appointed is a prime example,
It came out of the blue. No discussion about definition of roles. I got very
much the impression that officers were to define their own role.
When Erik Moeller stated how he wanted to act, I did not see much response
from the board or anyone else.
Of course the whole community could have started to debate the new roles
after people were appointed,
that hardly happened either. It is a bit more difficult when people have
been appointed already.
Secondly I already mentioned the current discussion about reforming the
decision making process, which is taking place.
Jimbo hinted to it when I met him in Amsterdam months ago and voiced similar
concerns as I did now.
I asked if Wikimania would be a good place to discuss this more openly and
he agreed,
but his answer on a question by Tim Starling was something close to "We are
working on reform and you'll hear more in a few months time."
Lastly in the beginning most board meetings were open, either for anyone to
comment online, or to read the full proceedings later.
Now most board meetings and even some wikis are closed and at best we get to
hear the actual decision and a very concise rationale.
I can understand that some issues deal with outside partners or specific
persons in our community and are sensitive.
Also meeting with 50 people talking at the same time on IRC is not
productive.
Why not publish most discussions verbatim with bits taken away that are
sensitive and a short explanation of what has been left out.
Is it that most meetings now deal with sensitive issues, and did not in the
past?
Anthere, you did not yet comment on a the lack of clear definition of roles,
responsibilities and procedures for board and other officials.
That was the major point I raised in my mail.
And let me state once more, what actually should go without saying,
that this is not a personal attack on you or Jimmy or anyone, as I think
most highly of you all.
Small digression about working hard: since I am asked almost daily, mostly
by mail: yes I am working on new wikistats.
In a few weeks time, when I announce new stats, I'll explain why it took so
long to update the scripts to mediawiki 1.5
Erik Zachte
Crosspost to: foundation-l, wikitech-l
At the end of 2002 on my request the mailing list Announce-l was created.
This because I noticed there was a serious problem whit internal
communication inside Wikipedia. Changes where done to the software,
important decisions where made whitout anybody who is not a mailing list
junky to know about it. Especially the problem to get information form the
English language community to the others.
The idea was to use the mailing list Announce-l for the announcement of
important things that have a impact for all wikipedias in all languages.
This for technical and organisational matters. So at least it could be
possible to inform the non-English wikipdias about what was going on and
maybe even give some feedback.
It has received whit an 100% positive responds but only one (1) reaction.
Again; thank you Daniel Mayer. So it never happened.
We are now 3 years later.
In general, things are a bit better. Aldo I think my original idea would
still be useful.
Now I would like to ask of the following "light edition" of Announce-l can
get support and implemented.
- use Announce-l for the reporting of problems whit the operation of the
services of the Wikimedia projects. Status reports about it and when it
works again.
Not for discussing or for bug rapports, only to inform the community. A
moderated list, low traffic.
This should be done by the technical staff of wikimedia.
Examples;
== search function ==
Some time ago a received by the email system for questions to the Dutch
Wikipedia some questions why the
can not find the new articles the have written.
I know that the search function is not live but it works whit a special
search database. So I asked them to wait until an update. But because it
takes so long for the update I have asked on the lists about it. It seems
that the update system is broken so new articles can not be found.
So now I can inform other users when there are questions about it and can
put up an notice on the search page about this.
When will I work again? I can only test to see.
For something like this Announce-l can be used. When it is known that the
update function for the search system does not work anymore a member of
the technical staf can send an message to Announce-l. And when it works
again or there is news about it again.
== OTRS ==
On a normal day the Dutch Wikipedia receives about 8 emails form visitors.
How the emails are done is an important part of how we can make a good
impression. All emails must be answered fast and professional.
Because I noticed the lack of new emails I start investigation. On
bugzilla no clue, only a ticket a have created so time ago when OTRS was
also not working. On the IRC #wikimedia-servers (or something like that) I
found a notice that OTRS is down. The last message I have received from
OTRS is from Saturday 13 august around 12 hours GMT. I have discovered it
Tuesday around 22:00 hours.
When I know OTRS does not work or will not work I can redirect the
incoming emails so the do not go to OTRS and we can answer them outside
OTRS. But I need to know it does not work to do so.
Also for this Announce-l would be very useful. Send an email "OTRS is
down, emails are in a que" or so and again when it works again.
Or when there will be an upgrade of MediaWiki. To say between X and x we
will upgrade the wiki to version X of MediaWiki. During the upgrade the
database will be locked for about 10 minutes.
Sysops will have after the upgrade have the option to rename account. See
http://some-place_whit_more_info.org
Now new functions are discovered after an upgrade.
If, and only if, Announce-l is always used for this type of things this
list can become very useful for those wikipedians who like to inform there
community and visitors about what i going on whit there wiki.
--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be
In a message dated 8/18/2005 5:48:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sabine_cretella(a)yahoo.it writes:
When talking about contents we can also think about companies that maybe
would feature an article paying it ... why not? It is a contribution as
well and we can get things done. And why not say: if you want this
article to be translated you also have to give something of something
that is important to other projects? Example: I have an article
translated into English (and really this is not "so much needed") - in
addition to that I pay for another article in any of the languages that
are "important to develop" - so everyone is happy.
Sure it is a contribution, but what would that do to our credibility. Having
companies pay for articles, especially feature articles, raises the question
of whether they are simply advertising pieces in the guise of articles, or
genuine NPOV coverage. If a company pays us to write or feature an article,
does that mean that we are beholden to them to provide their POV as well? What
about if a political or religious group tries to do the same thing? To what
degree will corporate or other moneys be used as leverage against NPOV.
I am confident that the community will reject this idea.
Danny
__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
Erik Moeller, your announcement is a most regrettable final step after an
escalation of sentiments on both sides. You invested too much in wikimedia
projects to let your pride get the better of you. You have strong opinions
and sometimes are impatient and even a bit short tempered, but your drive
and vision are most wanted.
I do not know enough of the current matter at hand to judge who is wrong and
who is right, if any is at all. I read all the exchanges between you and
Anthere but that seems not be the whole story. I do however believe that
much confusion could have been avoided when the role of CRO had been better
defined. But the same goes for the role of the board!
I do feel somewhat uncomfortable with the ongoing trend to treat the board
as the people who pull the strings. In my view a hierarchy is indeed
emerging, where you Erik, object to, but which you, perhaps unwittingly,
fostered in the past, in fact I noticed on several occasions how you
deferred matters to the board instead of to the community.
Role and responsabilities of the board have never been clearly defined,
unless we view the bylaws as such, but those seem more like a safety valve,
with formulations that only should be applied in extreme emergencies "The
Board of Trustees shall be empowered to make any and all regulations, rules,
policies, user agreements, terms of use, and other such decisions as may be
necessary for the continued functioning of the Foundation not inconsistent
with these bylaws."
The board according to Jimbo is currently discussing (ironically behind
closed curtains) how to improve democracy within wikimedia. After experts
have been consulted the community will have a final say, Jimmy told us, but
it still does not feel like the wiki way, where everyone helps in the
brainstorming process when ideas are still fluid.
Having said that, we are lucky in my view with the board members we have,
who are mostly a cohesive force. I've seen several occasions in the more
distant past where Angela and Anthere expressly refused to take decisions
before the community had spoken. Jimbo delegates a lot, I would say. Also I
don't believe Jimbo's ego is "the size of a planet". His ambitions are,
almost literally, "the size of a planet", which is different.
So let us be inspired to clarify roles, responsabilities and procedures, at
a time when we can do without in many occasions, in preparation for a time
when we might need more clarity and transparency badly. Erik, in fact your
collision with the board is a wake up call in this respect. Please stay and
help us turn this into a positive experience.
Erik Zachte
Hello..
..I think it could be useful to compute the probability an article B is read on
condition that another article A is read whithin a short timeframe before from a
specific reader. Based on this probabilities suggestions could be made to the
reader of a specific article which articles could be also interesting (maybe a
kind of collaborative filtering or Amazon's "Customers who bought this book also
bought.."). Subscribed user could offered personalized recommendations based on
the computation how probable it is that an article is of interest to that
specific user who read those articles. I'd be interested in implementing that
idea, so as a first step I'd be interested in a sample log file with a size of
some Megabyte.
Tobias
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
I am happy to inform you, that "Stowarzyszenie Wikimedia Polska"
(Wikimedia Polska Association), the Polish Chapter of Wikimedia
Foundation, has been founded this sunday in Krakow, during a larger two
day event called "Wikimedia Polska 2005 Meetup". More than 25 founding
members signed the documents.
Five Wikimedians were pre-elected to the Board of Wikimedia Polska:
- Łukasz Garczewski (pl:User:TOR), as president;
- Piotr Cywiński (pl:User:Wulfstan), as vice-president;
- Tomasz Ganicz (pl:User:Polimerek), as tresurer;
- Dariusz Siedlecki (pl:User:Datrio), as scretary;
- Jadwiga Andrychowska-Biegacz (pl:User:Jadwiga), as board member.
We still have to get the documents to court and take care of all the
formalities, but we can already see new possibilites opening up before us.
Please visit http://pl.wikimedia.org/ for more information and the
latest news on the Polish Chapter if you want to keep up to date. We
will translate the important pages into English ASAP.
If you need to contact the Polish Chapter, feel free to msg me (TOR_CNR)
or Datrio on #wikimedia on IRC, leave a message on our talk pages on
pl.wikimedia.org (or meta) or e-mail us (addresses can be found on meta).
Chapters aside, you can view the photos taken during the meetup on the
Commons under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polish_Wikimedia_Meetup_2005
or in Polish (if you want to practice our wonderfully difficult language
by reading the cations) under:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Zlot_Wikimedia_Polska_2005/Zdj%C4%99…
I'd also like to thank everyone whose work and dedication made both the
Chapter and the meetup possible. Special thanks go to Datrio, Wulfstan
and G-dam for all the hard work they've done on the bylaws and to
Jadwiga for organizing things in Krakow wonderfully.
And a big thank you to Tim Shell (who attended the meetup and had to put
up with us Poles for two days :)) for all the patience, kind words and
encouragement!
--
Best regards,
Lucas "TOR" Garczewski
Hi Everybody,
I am working in the area of Question-Answering (QA), particulary QA against
Wikipedia. I am from Informatics Institute of Univeristy of Amsterdam. One of
the things that I am planning to do is analysis of user information needs. Users
include both end-users and authors. For that I need the access logs of
Wikipedia. I have talked about my research plan to a number of people during
Wikimania conference. http://www.science.uva.nl/~sfissaha/Proj_Outline.pdf is a
short-description of my research plan, which I also gave some of the people I
talked to, including Jimmy. Recently I wrote a paper "Discovering Missing Links
in Wikipedia" which is accepted in LinkKDD-2005, August 21-24 Chicago.
I would greatly appreciate any help in this matter. My Supervisor is Maarten de
Rijke. I am willing to sign any legal document relating to privacy issue.
Best Wishes
Sisay