http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06042526.htm
Remembering ten things to be freed, and how amazon is Evil (tm)
patent-wise, would this warrant a "counter-strike"? products.wikimedia.org?
Magnus
I am top posting and breaking the thread on purpose, as I am not
trying to address all the concerns in this thread, but rather trying
to give a little background and a different perspective.
I have followed, in my position as local chapter coordinator, the
different steps in the founding of both the Vereniging (member
association) and Stichting (Foundation). For those who are puzzled by
this double organisational background, let me give you some
explanation.
A Vereniging is a member organisation, much on the model of all other
Wikimedia Chapters. Its board is elected by the general assembly, made
up of members who pay their fees to be part of the organisation. Note
that members *have* to be part of the Wikimedia projects to be members
of the organisation. Which, if anything, puts the power in the hands
of *the community*.
A Stichting is a Foundation, much on the model of our Wikimedia
Foundation. It has a board that is appointed. One of the members of
this board is appointed by the Verijniging. The reason given for the
founding of this Stichting is that in NL, sponsors, and particularly
governement or other big non-profit organisation, are less enclined
handing out large sums of money to member organisations, as their
"stability" is not as important as that of Stichting.
In the process of the founding of both, there was already much
discussion, that discussion was open (the nl.wikimedia.org wiki is
open to whoever wants to discuss). People there voiced their concerns,
including me.
As I understand it, the Vereniging will be the primary point of entry
for any deals with sponsors that may come to Wikimedia Nederland, the
Stichting will be used as a "buffer" for great-scale projects
involving lots of money, potentially employing people etc.. In that
respect, I believe that the choices made were the good ones.
That's for the background.
Now. I have read in this thread many counter-truths and misleading
statements. Let us make one thing very very clear.
Chapters, whatever their form, color or shape, are not responsible for
the content of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. Never. Ever.
At best, they will increase the pool of editors through promotion for
the projects. At worst, they have to relay the problems that they are
aware of "may be problematic content" (potential legal issues) to the
Wikimedia Foundation. That's it. There's no *editor* Wikimedia France*
or *Wikimedia Polska* or *Wikimedia Nederland*. There are editors who
pertain only to the projects, there are editors who pertain to both
the project and the organisation. End of the story.
Allow me to doubt that any of the board members of Wikimedia Nederland
blocked anyone on the Dutch Wikipedia "on behalf of the Wikimedia
Nederland". If they did block anyone or edit, it was in their
responsibility as editors or admins, only answerable to the community.
Pretending the contrary is mixing oil and water. It simply does not
work.
As far as the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation is
concerned, the bylaws of both the Vereniging and the Stichting are
very clear, and leave no room for interpretation as to whether either
is ever going to take over the Wikimedia projects. They are not.
This is for my official statement.
Now, for those of you who have felt left out of the process, I will
say just this, going from a virtual project to an organisation is not
always an easy process. As a matter of fact, I have had the impression
that it was more painful for the Dutch than it has been for any of the
other chapters. However, I am confident that if you feel you need to
change things, you are empowered to do so.
*Backing down* from the founding process and *then* criticizing, is,
in my opinion, definitely not constructive. There is a wiki, it is
open, there is an organisation, you can become a member. The best you
can start with is making sure you have a voice in the Vereniging to
change things from the inside. It starts here:
http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ledenlijst.
Cheers,
Delphine
--
~notafish
On 4/18/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> With some suprise I have seen from a distance a situation arise by
> people who did not involve themselves during the setup of the Dutch
> chapter. If anything I can vouch for the fact that one of the guiding
> principles during the setup of the chapter was to maximise the
> community aspect.
Hmmmmm ... it sounds quite similar to Japanese projects' situation.
The main difference is here is no legal body yet. Only discussion.
Perhaps from the same reason, I kept silence on that affair, but the
current cource of Dutch people makes me anxious.
So, I would describe what is going on meta around "Japanese chapter"
from my view. Please let me share your experience and impression. I
believe all people involved would be in a good faith, but their deeds
haven't seemed to me productive nor matured......
I would like to say I have never been involved, but should confess
already I left my footprint on those pages. I have found necessity to
express my objection and unfavored voice to them, those who were
discussing on [[meta:Wikimedia Japan]], created by an anon and then
none of those - two editors - I haven't known (I think I have
interacted with more than 100 editors on Japanese projects. Even 200.
But none of those who were editing on that page were unfamiliar to me)
. One another editor supported to found the local chapter, but he is
known very young, and, ah, immature person, even in a good faith.
I don't think they are in a bad faith. Perhaps contrary. As for
involvement, and understanding what the Wikimedia project is, how
chapters and the Florida based Foundation interact with each other, or
whatsoever - my impression wasn't favored to them, honestly.
Since I believe they are in a good faith, and only now lack
understanding what they (and we) need, but from this very reason, I
wouldn't have liked to interact with them. Still I don't. So I would
have liked to keep a distant - very afar I have observed their
discussion, but one day one of them stated "every Japanese project'
editor, including anons, are considered to have membership of japanese
chapter" and "Aphaia would be our contact person to the Florida
Foundation" - note, I haven't have been involved into their
discussion, nor have indicated to join "the chapter", I couldn't
avoid letting them know that they had no legal right to involved any
person in such a way - people who woudln't their intention
explicitely.
Now, there are three editors listing themselves as "supporters to
found Wikimedia Japan". On that document, it states "when 20 people
support to settle the Japanese chapter, It will be settled". In my
humble opinion, it would be one of most naive prospecti around local
chapter launching, but if they are so naive to believe in their own
statements, their fate, and our own would be not different from the
Dutch community, I'm afraid.
--
Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
Sometimes, several new user accounts will vandalise a wiki, after which the
local sysops will apply infinite blocks. In these cases it is very probable
that the accounts are sockpuppets of one user and form an "array of vandal
sockpuppets" (AOVS). A wiki with local CheckUser users can use CheckUser to
check if the vandalism is from an AOVS, and then block the IP address of the
AOVS. (see footnote [1]) One such situation occured today at en.wikibooks,
which has no local CheckUser users. Thus I decided to try to request some
CheckUser information from the stewards. So I went to:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_CheckUser_information
However, I discovered that there are unhandled requests on that page. At 1
April 2006, there was a request concerning a previous AOVS on en.wikibooks. At
30 March 2006, there was a request concerning an AOVS ("array of vandal
sockpuppets") on simple.wikipedia. Neither request is marked has handled or
rejected. It is now 14 April 2006, and we are at risk of losing the opportunity
for CheckUser, because the databases sometimes forget IPs after one week. [2]
Why has no steward responded to these and many other requests for information
made in February, March, and April 2006?
-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
Footnote [1]:
I have not found good documentation, but I will describe how I believe the
blocking to work; please correct me if I am wrong.
* A block against a user account blocks only when that user is logged in.
* A block against an IP address blocks all user accounts, but only when the
accounts edit from that IP.
* When a blocked user accesses the wiki, an autoblocker also blocks this IP
address. This block expires when the user block expires, or after 24 hours,
whichever is earlier.
* If a sysop acts quickly and blocks an AOVS user account while the vandal is
still active, the autoblocker will block the AOVS ("array of vandal
sockpuppets") IP address, but only for 24 hours.
Footnote [2]:
I have not yet made my request for CheckUser information. I want to know the
answer to this question:
Why has no steward responded to these and many other requests for information
made in February, March, and April 2006?
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:02:35 +0200 Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> Actually we are already taking care of the german stuff with a German
> Law Firm. We have been working on this for 3 months already.
So that's reassuring to read - from the lack of information I can't
say promissing.
> I also hope to give you more details once we'll begin to get some results.
If you don't try to buy the trademark (see
http://ecommerce.infochannel.org/product_info.php?products_id=170) but
to object on the official way, I guess we'll se the result soon in the
DPMA database.
> Do not try to do anything on your own that would complicate everything.
Of course not. I'm not talking about full disclosure. But in my
opinion a little more information from the beginning on would have
been nicer.
Thanks,
Jürgen
I believe Walter is right when he contradicts that there is a group of
admins that act against the wishes of the community. When the first plans of
a Dutch Wikimedia organisation were made I contributed to the discussions on
the Dutch Wikimedia website and I went to a (the first?) meeting of people
who were interested. It soon occurred to me that some people had very strong
opinions on forming an organisation, and there was not many room for
dissident opinions. I got the impression that many people thought that the
organisation could/should have a say about the Dutch Wikipedia. I didn't
like the way some people (who were intent on becoming a board member) seemed
to force their opinion on others, so I backed out of the development of the
organisation. I believe that the way dissident opinions were handled is now
an important source of the fear of many Dutch Wikipedians that the Dutch
foundation and association (but mostly the foundation, since that is the
least democratic) will not listen to the Dutch community.
-Fruggo
Walter Vermeir schreef:
>
> > I think the biggest problem is that a certain group of Dutch moderators
> take
> > decisions for example to block someone for a long time, without being
> > interested in the opinion of the community. Something there is some
> admin
> > power abuse done by that specific group of moderators. Now the case is
> that
> [cut]
>
> The Dutch Wikipedia is not paradise. But you give the impression that
> there is a group of admins on the Dutch Wikipedia who are behaving
> strongly against the wishes of the community. And that those are now
> also controlling those new chapters.
>
> This is highly incorrect.
>
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but this wasn't what I was suggesting. I hardly
recollect that two people were trying to start a chapter on their own, and I
do not think that that is the reason people do not trust the current
foundation (association) and/or its board members. I do think that some
people have coerced their opinion. How people feel about that is worsened by
the fact that board members only (very) reluctantly answer the questions of
Dutch Wikimedians.
I also like to make clear that I did or do not mistrust anyone, I believe
everyones intentions about a Dutch chapter are sincere (strong opinion or
not).
-Fruggo
Oscar wrote (among other things):
> maybe fruggo is right in suggesting that the current board and chapter is
> suffering from the mistrust that those two people that have tried to
> organize a chapter before, without any involvement or even knowledge
> thereof
> by the dutch communities, has left behind.
>
>
> On 4/19/06, Fruggo <fruggo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I believe Walter is right when he contradicts that there is a group of
> > admins that act against the wishes of the community. When the first
> plans
> > of
> > a Dutch Wikimedia organisation were made I contributed to the
> discussions
> > on
> > the Dutch Wikimedia website and I went to a (the first?) meeting of
> people
> > who were interested. It soon occurred to me that some people had very
> > strong
> > opinions on forming an organisation, and there was not many room for
> > dissident opinions. I got the impression that many people thought that
> the
> > organisation could/should have a say about the Dutch Wikipedia. I didn't
> > like the way some people (who were intent on becoming a board member)
> > seemed
> > to force their opinion on others, so I backed out of the development of
> > the
> > organisation. I believe that the way dissident opinions were handled is
> > now
> > an important source of the fear of many Dutch Wikipedians that the Dutch
> > foundation and association (but mostly the foundation, since that is the
> > least democratic) will not listen to the Dutch community.
> >
> > -Fruggo
> >
> > Walter Vermeir schreef:
> >
> > >
> > > > I think the biggest problem is that a certain group of Dutch
> > moderators
> > > take
> > > > decisions for example to block someone for a long time, without
> being
> > > > interested in the opinion of the community. Something there is some
> > > admin
> > > > power abuse done by that specific group of moderators. Now the case
> is
> >
> > > that
> > > [cut]
> > >
> > > The Dutch Wikipedia is not paradise. But you give the impression that
> > > there is a group of admins on the Dutch Wikipedia who are behaving
> > > strongly against the wishes of the community. And that those are now
> > > also controlling those new chapters.
> > >
> > > This is highly incorrect.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 25, Issue 35
> ********************************************
>
Hi,
I'm new to this list, so please forgive me if I mess up. There's been
some talk about advertisement on wikipedia or not. Why not make it
optional, so that each user decides if he/she wants to see the
advertisement? That way, users can "support" wikipedia or not. I don't
think that'd be a sell out.
Tony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bruguiea
Hello,
I recently looked up the German Patent and Trade Mark Office's
database for "Wikipedia". It resulted in two hits.
One is about the trademark "Wikipedia" in the area of tents, clothes,
shoes and sportsware and dates back to mid 2004.
The other one is about the trademark "Wikipedia" in three classes
containing a lot of IT related stuff including database service, data
collecting, telecommunication in general, online informations
services.
Owner is a company called "Firestorm Forces Ltd." and searching on it
together with Wikipedia I learned they're involved some bad
anti-Wikipedia agitation. Seems they're also acting as "Infochannel
Group" and as those clashed with german Wikipedians because of their
entry ([[Infochannel Group]]) in de.wikipedia. They also run a site
called Encyclopedia Wikimania (http://www.wikimania.co.uk), a quite
strange one with no real content.
I can't say if the classes they registered are relevant and interfere
with what "our" Wikipedia does. But it might be and then it could
become troublesome for us.
The trademark was filed in November last year and puplicated on
January 27th 2006. That means the opposition period end on April 27th.
Maybe someone is interested in doing some more research and foundating
might think about filing an opposition.
Regards,
Jürgen
Ahh, just beat me to it :-)
They're not taking applications yet, and the #summer-discuss IRC
channel is inexplicably hosted on SlashNET, but that's extremely cool.
Congrats to Brion and everyone working on this... last year, Google
sponsored an average of 10 students per project/org on their list.
Huzzah!,
SJ
* likewise Creative Commons, One Laptop Per Child (which is doing cool
things with wikis and wants to fit Wikimedia content on its laptops),
and Xiph.org, which is moving closer to providing a truly robust free
audio and video toolchain. A reason to smile... :-)
On 4/23/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after wandering through the archive of those lists, it seems that
> nobody has yet mentioned that Wikimedia was accepted as a mentoring
> organisation for the Google Summer of Code 2006.
>
> http://code.google.com/soc/wikim/about.html
>
> Students may apply for this in the first 8 days of May.
>
> Please have a look at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2006 for suggestions
> regarding possible projects.
>
> It would be a great opportunity for us, yadda yadda etc. please apply.
>
> Mathias
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
--
++SJ