Please remove previous post, and possibly this one.
I hit the wrong button. It is just a unmodified post by Anthere before I
could add comments
and now seems to be my text which it isn't.
Erik Zachte
Hello, fellow Wikimedians!
I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
about my proposed project:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
Sincerely,
Messedrocker
On Sat, 2006-17-06 at 19:38 +1000, Nathan Carter wrote:
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> >Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread
> >to all wikis?
> >
> >
> It is used on all wikis. I know it has been used on Wikinews quite a bit
> lately.
>
Just to clarify, there have been two CheckUsers performed on Wikinews in
the past couple weeks (one involving a string of IPs used by a known
sockpuppeteer.) Nathan may be somewhat unaware of volume of requests on
en.Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case> or on
Meta
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_CheckUser_information/Archives/…>.
Regarding fundraising. From the recent discussion I've come to the
conclusion that there isn't a fundraising committee, yet, so when
there is one, I'll forward such ideas to it. But in the meantime, here
you go.
I think there is a lot of untapped potential in selling existing WM
items to try and increase the average donation. 'sweeteners'. The
CafePress merch at the moment is a little bit crud. For example some
Wikibooks already offer PDF versions (well, Learning German in English
does, at least). So you could say, "Donate $X and receive a free
e-book to learn German!" Or a "best of" the cookbook. The only extra
cost to the Foundation is the bandwidth.
I am constantly amazed at the quality of Wikimedian photography at the
Commons and we could easily bundle, say, 10 super high quality images
together in a ZIP and offer "10 free computer wallpapers". Since we
have so many I think we could even offer a choice between a few of
these, by theme (eg landscapes, art, sunsets, science-y, insects
having sex). We could set the donation bar for this $5 higher than
whatever the average donation last time was.
I would also like to create some templates and put together some
themes to allow people to easily make their own calendars from Commons
material. And back to fundraising, CafePress does calendars. I don't
really know who controls all that but I assume there'd be no objection
if I/we put some together for that? I imagine they would sell really
well in Nov/Dec. They also do prints and mousepads, gift cards...
Of course the markup on CafePress stuff is not great, it would be
better if could be done inhouse somehow, but I haven't figured out a
good solution to that yet. The "computer wallpapers" and PDF books
stuff exists already though. I guess all you would need is to have the
files on the foundation wiki and when a donation is over the target,
they get some special 'download link'.
So, is what I'm proposing technically feasible, is it a good idea or
will it probably be a lot of fuss for negligible impact, and should I
start trying to find good candidates for such things?
cheers,
Brianna
en|commons:user:pfctdayelise
PS. I also think there is great potential in the Spoken Wikipedia
material, but I haven't figured out what the best format for it would
even be. How many could you reasonably ZIP?
Hello,
A couple of users on my wiki have been arguing, and it appears that one
of them has resorted to vandalizing the other person's Wikipedia page.
This suspected vandal always accesses my wiki from the same IP, and that
IP was associated with sexual comments that were added to the other
user's Wikipedia page.
I'd just like to know if this is good evidence of misconduct, of if a
savvy user could spoof someone else's IP address and frame them for
misconduct.
Thanks,
AdamRetchless
With the talk on this list recently of jobs that need doing, I'm
interested to know whether there are many people who would be
interested in being a member of the Board if there were more seats
available. If that is something you'd consider, please let me know.
Note that I'm not saying this is a possibility right now, but it would
make planning easier if we had something more than guesswork of who
might be a candidate to go on.
Angela.
I think this raises some important questions. I am giving only partial
answers right now, but they should be some indication of the direction, at least
as I see it.
In a message dated 6/13/2006 6:21:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
eloquence(a)gmail.com writes:
On 6/12/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
> 1 Are we allowed to solicit funds anywhere? Not quite as simple as you may
> think.
I remember that we've had those discussions before about the
fundraising page and the way it should be worded. In recent fund
drives, however, we've become more aggressive, with a personal appeal
from Jimmy, slogans like "Help empower the world", and so on. We still
have a disclaimer that this does not constitute a solicitation, but is
that sufficient? Are we currently registered in any U.S. state other
than Florida for solicitation of funds? If not, would such a
registration make sense?
Yes, however, I would hope that a genuine fundraising campaign would extend
beyond placing a banner on our websites. It would involve solicitation and,
especially, donor cultivation, especially of people making large gifts. The
registration process to do this outside of Florida is complicated. It is well
underway, but requires time and oversight, as it must be done annually in each
state individually.
> 2 What is the cost of a direct mailing? Try multiplying postage costs by
1000s,
> add printing costs, then add hourly rates. We can either do the mailing
in-house
> (at which point you must consider whether it is worth paying my salary to
have
> me stuff envelopes) or a service (which adds to the costs).
How about trying to decentralize the "licking envelopes" part? Allow a
large number of reasonably trusted volunteers to send "thank you"
notes (add some legal disclaimer about the sender not being a
Wikimedia employee etc. if necessary). Compensate them for postage,
but not for time. I'm not sure this is a viable model, but it may be
worth trying out.
I agree that this may not be a viable model but worth trying out. Note that
in an earlier email, I asked for volunteers and specifically mentioned this.
So far one person has volunteered. Regardless, there are some other issues
taht should be considered, such as the uniformity of the thank you note. This
would mean shipping cards, letters, printed envelopes, and what have you to
people--another cost that should be considered. There is also the issue of
oversight. I can imagine people pushing off the tedious stuffing of envelopes for
any number of valid reasons. What assurance do we have that the proper
mailings get sent. Note that I do not believe these problems are
insurmountable--just that they should be considered. There are also other options, such as
paying a commercial service to do this, however, this is an added expense.
> 3 Are there any mails that we are required to send by law? Yes
That's a good point. How good are we presently at complying with these
regulations, e.g. notifying people who make >$200 donations outside
regular fund drives? Does the applicable law already allow for the use
of digitally signed e-mails, or do we have to send snail mail?
To date, this has been done in time. I have even instituted a policy that a
letter is now sent immediately upon receipt by snail mail of any gift over
$200. I also have PDFs of each letter for our own records. One practical thing
to note is that the bulk of larger donations is sent via bank transfer or
personal check mailed to the office, not by Paypal. As such, even if we were
able to send such letters electronically (and I was under the impression that
we could not), the only contact information we often have is a snail mail
address, so the question is moot.
Danny
Important notice: Brion totally rocks.
Images can now be undeleted...Yes, I said undeleted.
I'll be leading group worship at the Church of the Almighty Brion at 7PM
UTC tomorrow.
Essjay
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
> On 6/14/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/13/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree completely. I resist very strongly any separation of
foundation
> > > and community.
> >
> > How about a different point of view? Separated in concept, but united
> > in practice. I am aware it sounds very inclining to a certain cultural
> > background, but still daresay this idea itself can be applied to many
> > cases, specially we need to cooperate with each other.
> >
> > Separation itself is nothing wrong. Separation without communication
> > nor collaboration is bad, or useless at best, assuredly.
> >
> > If there is no separation, we require never two words or concepts: in
> > practice the community isn't involved into a certain matter which the
> > foundation cares for, and vice versa, I assume. If that sounds too
> > metaphisical or awkward, we might need another terminology, like
> distinction, instead of separation.
>
> Delphine:
> Thank you for that. This is exactly what I think we should tend towards.
'Separated in concept, united in practice'.
It would have been a great subtitle for an Alexander Dumas novel. ;)
Aphaia or Delphine can one of you explain what this means?
Let me explain what I meant with the statement that Jimmy commented on. I'll
try not to repeat myself too much, but rather to expand and explain.
The point made earlier about separation of foundation and community refers
to posts where people argue that the foundation has different
responsibilities, different legal liabilities, by necessity a different
modus operandi and even a different set of objectives, other than those of
the community. (paraphrasing here) Some made it sound as if the community
should mind its own business and let the foundation do what it knows is best
for all of us. (again paraphrasing) This is what I and others objected to.
We should not think of a foundation and a community as separate entities,
with operations that are mutually unconnected. I'm glad Jimmy endorsed this
view, though I am not sure we agree on the finer details, where decision
making dynamics are involved.
Of course foundation and community are not identical. Not a dualistic
wave/particle entity. They are different. The foundation and the board take
responsibility for judicial and administrative obligations and committments
that need to be dealt with daily. By paying our bills, signing contracts,
guarding our rights, etc they serve the community. That is all fine with me.
The crux of the debate as I see it is: Can the foundation have an autonomous
role in defining Wikimedias long term goals, and even more important the
final say? Can the CEO and/or the board formulate Wikimedia long term
strategy by itself, decide which deals to strike with what kind of
corporations on which terms, and which grants to accept on which terms,
without clear, written and binding general principles a.k.a. mandate from
the community? Can the board appoint members from outside the community
(still hypothetical but hinted to by Jimmy) and explain afterwards that this
was the perfect candidate (compare CEO), or should the board use reason and
arguments to convince the community of its wise proposal and possibly stand
corrected ?
Whether discussions on this list are representative for the vox populi is
anyones guess. If they are, about half of the community would like to see
fundamental changes in how that same community is represented. Of course
everyone may be tempted to think that the silent majority approves current
status quo by not complaining, but equally so one can think it approves
current criticism by not countering it. The silent majority is like a
portrait that smiles at you from every corner of the room, but to everyone
else at the same time. There is only one way to know what the community
really wants: let's ask them explicitly. Either by survey or plebiscite. It
would strengthen the sense of community if people cannot only express an
opinion (survey) but really exert influence (plebiscite0. Of course the
usual precautions against sock puppetry apply.
I'm in favour of chosen representatives, checks and balances, written
procedures, formally approved strategy. all of this without becoming overly
bureaucratic. Some slowing down might be inevitable but might be a good
thing when broad outlines are to be defined. I'll happily trust the board to
translate these strategical community approved outlines into daily tactical
decisons, and answer the community about them afterwards.
Erik Zachte
While all this discussion of the cost of pizza in Tampa Bay is
very interesting, it might be polite to other list members if
discussions are kept focused on the organization of the Wikimedia
Foundation and its board. I'm not speaking for any of these, I'm
just a bystander with an interest in statistics.
In the last week, I have received 216 messages addressed to
foundation-l. That would be 800 posts per month, which is twice as
much as the comfortable level. As a comparison, wikitech-l saw
124 messages in the same time and the German wikide-l only 44.
The most frequent posters to foundation-l were:
24 From: Michael R. Irwin
20 From: Anthony DiPierro
14 From: Kelly Martin
13 From: Erik Moeller
11 From: Gregory Maxwell
10 From: Zack Clark
10 From: Anthere
8 From: Jimmy Wales
6 From: Robert Scott Horning
6 From: Delirium
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se