On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:51:26
Robert Scott Horning replied to
Message-ID: <44880D19.2020202(a)world1tours.com>
and finished saying:
==================== Quote ====================
............
I want to thank Jimbo on trying to avoid getting the WMF into any
political mess, including the network bandwidth issue and other seeming
partisian neutral issues. For crying out loud, there are enough
internal politics going on with Wikimedia projects to last for a
lifetime. We don't need to turn Wikimedia projects into political
battle grounds any more than [[w:George W. Bush]] already is.
--
Robert Scott Horning
================== END Quote ==================
The above is most interesting, and I'd hopefully be as ready as anyone to recognize gallant efforts to avoid getting into any political messes, etc. My obsession, however, is to always structure things (right from the beginning and as much as possible) so that we are well isolated from such issues as nasty freedom of speech challenges. This then minimizes any need for later dramatics.
See Subject: Eloquence #01 - libelous info
Z.Clark
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:51:26
Robert Scott Horning replied to
Message-ID: <44880D19.2020202(a)world1tours.com>
initially stating:
==================== Quote ====================
While I might have dismissed this posting, there is some things that I
do agree with you here.
There is the point of fundraising, however. This is unfortunately
necessary as there are physical, tangible assetts that need to be
aquired (in the case of the WMF, there is the server farms) and some
professionals that are required to maintain these servers. This means
that Wikipedia and the sister projects need to exist in an environment
that requires hard, cold cash. Paying for internet bandwidth isn't free
either, and for the quantities that Wikipedia uses, normally won't even
be donated by most organizations, for profit or not. Indeed Wikipedia
gets discounts in terms of value per megabyte simply because of the
volume of data being streamed from Wikimedia servers. Fundraising is a
necessary evil, and that requires the whole thing of trying to deal with
accountants, lawyers, trademarks, CEOs, and professional staff.
Considering the size of the volunteer force that is available and
working on Wikimedia projects, this professional component is
surprisingly small, even for similarly minded charitble activities. And
the value produced per dollar donated to the WMF is quite high, which is
why thousands of dollars have come in simply by sticking out a tin cup
and asking for some donations, with the only real ads for this coming
from the website itself.
That said, I hope that we stick to proven fundraising techniques, and
don't waste too much effort or time into grants that may end up being
more of a hassle than any real value. A couple of ideas and projects
have floated by that have made me scratch my head a little bit to wonder
just why it was thought up, but at least people are trying to be creative.
..................
--
Robert Scott Horning
================== END Quote ==================
Thanks for a most enlightening response. Your report on how we keep the 'professional' component so surprisingly small even when compared to similar minded groups (which are likely older & more experienced) is most encouraging indeed! This plus our unusually high value produced per dollar only encourages my belief that a means can be evolved to 100% eliminate any need for FRNs. After all, isn't your "hard, cold cash" merely an indirect step to networking hardware, cold computers, and 'professional' services?
I'm also glad you recognize fund-raising as "evil". Just quit embracing it as "necessary", and we'll be 98.6% of the way home. In a like vein, I appreciate you boldly citing the "tin cup" - which bears the following label, "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" Now while that sentiment may be right on for the redistribution enthusiast, it's hardly an apt message from leading edge, world class value producers. To convey a better grasp of reality, a more enticing offer would be, "Engage a new dawn of freed intellect with us!"
In fact, hardware and networking providers who cannot readily grasp the value of supplying WMF with all their needs are likely too inept to remain a dominant market force for long and should be avoided. A slew of computers or a few bags of bandwidth are cheap prices to pay in order to showcase one's wares in this arena. Not to mention being an honored part of this century's leading freedom phenomenon. But just to be extra classy, we should also give them a YeNom celebrating their alliance in forging a freer future.
That said, I hope that we can open our minds to the creation of options beyond the fund-raising farce.
I've reviewed past posts to this list to find an exceptional example of the strong kind of thinking that might be supportive of these ideas. Interestingly, Mr. Horning's email (Message-ID: <448411A9.2030600(a)netzero.net>) of Mon, 05_Jun_2006 turns out to be the recommended insight to read. So I suspect that perhaps Robert fashioned his response to purposely provide me (the new guy) with a good lead-in to my current rant. In any case, thanks for your generosity.
Incidently, every time 'professional' is used here, it invariably calls to mind a dangerously diseased whore (the oldest profession). And when contrasted to our virgin pure volunteers, I fail to see why there is any desire for the former.
Z.Clark
P.S. Considering that you "might have dismissed this posting". Could you perhaps enlighten me regarding any reasons why (so that I might respectfully improve my email sent to this list)?
I've been watching YOU - warriors of the Wiki wonder!
Such a precious phenomenon - because, when I want the
clean clear skinny on say "digital signature", I don't
go to pgp.mit.edu|www.pgpi.org, an U.S. Commerce site,
nor Google, and certainly NOT Britannica; as Wikipedia
has consistently proven to be where the real wealth is.
Needless preaching to the choir you say?? - maybe not.
Wiki, GNU and Linus’ Law are all spawned from the same
spirit - availing strategies which have achieved record
breaking results with heretofore inconceivable despatch.
Yet those gifted pioneers moving this new future forward
appear to be unaware of the full realm of freedom forces
being unleash and their world revolutionizing relevance.
Ya think I'm laying it on a bit thick? Well -if so- then
my goal over the next few short months is to demonstrate
that indeed this perspective is really an understatement.
To continue, the most personally inspiring aspect of this
whole marvel is the fact that it's unstoppablely unfolded
without massive mega-dollars of funding! In fact, it can
even be argued that the monetary status quo -which wholly
engulfs us- constitutes a hostile proprietary environment
that’s largely counterproductive to the needs of today’s
avant-garde talent (requiring a new realm of recognition).
Hmmm - lets just leave that thought hang for the moment...
OK - the big question of the hour seems to be if this dear
movement must be wisely restrained to merely your precious
products or if it should foolishly be given an opportunity
to address an expanded range of challenges. I'm concerned
the former 'wisdom' will reign. Before continuing however,
this phenomena I'm fawning over merits its own term. How's
"7F" (freedom fest fanatics forging fine faultless fruit)?
So if 7F can give us Wikipedia, GNU & Linux then why would
one ever shy from its application in the arena of practical
policy making unless it was fear of effectiveness? To be a
bit fair, writing a quality encyclopedia IS hardly the same
as doing a business plan, but neither is coding an OS! In
other words if 7F can successfully accommodate the extremes
we've already witnessed, then why can't we further tune it
for yet more terrific transformations? However, I see very
little about new 7F approaches. Instead, there appears to
be this dangerous morbid attraction for delving into dirty
dollar dilemmas - a sadly unfortunate degrading indulgence.
The biggest bumbling bugaboo bobbing about is a bastardized
belief in the very nature of wealth. This ancient avaricious
animal (a scarcity paradigm) adverts attention from our true
assets and fixes the mind on conforming to hapless criteria.
Is that what we want to be about?? Or can someone sense the
power of a moral groundswell right under our proverbial feet?
All I'm trying to convey here is that in just 5 years you're
a blooming top 16 website propelled to prominence without any
big bucks. Now that folks, is truly & profoundly beautiful!
Nevertheless there is this incredible spectacle of depending
on donations. Yea, I know, when under the status quo's spell
it all seem so natural. But please consider that you're NOT
in some mere redistribution business like the UNITED WAY and
multitudes of want-to-be clones. Because (like the GNU/Linux
hackers) you are actually CREATING freed high quality wealth
in the most real ways. Moreover, each & every party involved
is enriched by the process (even the volunteers although not
nearly to the extent they should be). And yes, I know tragic
shortages of funds always occur when monetary elite channel
funds in preferential ways. But this hardly means that some
scarcity mentality is necessary nor that subjugation to any
authoritarian proprietary money need be forever suffered.
I am not saying it's best to totally abandon donations & the
whole 501c3 scene (just yet). But I certainly do believe we
can build upon the wealth that's being constantly created by
valiant volunteers and seize the power to transform the most
basic precepts concerning wealth. And perhaps the best part
is that this can be realized in full accord with 7F ideas.
Listen up, CREATING WEALTH & BEAUTY IS YOUR STRONGEST FORTE.
OK? So why weaken yourself by pandering to false & pathetic
scarcity principles wholly alien to the wiki spirit? Your
proper placement for key endeavors should always be right
at the very top. But let me just say that you will never
be sterling players in the supplicant's area. There are
just far too many of them who have already honed their
curious craft to razor sharpness. Even if you should
become honored & famed fund raisers that inevitably
lures one into the sullen slippery slope realm of
the lecherous lobbyist. And before you know it
your previously free & wide open world starts
shrinking to accommodate the mean & narrow
minded precepts of the status quo.
The very existence of vastly varied cultures resulting solely
from the segregation of populations is itself, an indisputable
indictment of individuals' innate predisposition to assimilate
cultural norms. So it is no surprise that so many minds -after
years of turning to dollars for their very survival- form this
impression that fiat currency is necessary and scarcity is the
natural way of the world. They then run both their daily lives
and organizations in accordance with the status quo's dictates.
So even while we may be setting on top of a mountain of wealth,
there is always the blind propensity to ignore our true assets
and instead seek after rather dangerously deceptive currencies.
But just as 7F (as expressed through WP) stands to obliterate
the sordid sanctity of copyright; a well working alternative
to FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) could crack our dependence on
that harmful mind warping illusion also.
So here's the idea. Embrace abundance. Focus on strengths.
Place prime importance on continued high quality work/gifts.
Expand upon the enrichment already created by awarding your
own form of (monetary) *recognition* (remember? we left this
hanging in 3rd paragraph above). Certainly any new monetary
concept appropriate for 7F needs calls for a whole new level
of integrity. So I'm suggesting a new order of raw individual
OWNERSHIP that is thief-proof, indestructible, unforgeable &
undeniable - plus basically cost free to a) create, b) store,
and c) transfer. The object of ownership is called a "YeNom"
since many of its features are the exact opposite of current
proprietary money.
The above -to good to be true- characteristics are actually
easy to actualize since -as you may have guessed- YeNoms are
simply files that are GPG/PGP clear text signed first by the
originator and finally by the recipient (should they wish to
assume ownership). All active YeNom files are maintained in
a highly accessible open source database available to anyone
on the Internet (3rd party service providers most welcomed).
A YeNom (text file) could be title to tangible goods, stock
in an enterprise, pledged delivery of work/product or most
anything else an originator might imagine. One especially
attractive idea for wiki would be votes of moral support in
the form of well considered comments on work & performance
for worthy persons, particularly your volunteers/supporters.
This is rather reminiscent of the barnstar idea, but with
higher expectations. YeNoms are highly objectified & most
explicitly owned. They are also filed in a huge database
open to the world with the ready ability to be transfered
to new owners (the complete ownership history is embedded
in all YeNoms). Esteemed personages endowed with more well
earned regard than dollars can use YeNoms to critique and
extol cohorts. This amplifies the value of their gestures
for the whole community. This forum is also a great stage
for high profile philanthropy through selectively purchas-
ing individuals' YeNoms. In any case, being a YeNom owner
avails significant appreciation potential with zero risks.
While this idea was originated with you all & the GNU/Linux
hackers in mind, it's fully open for anyone's use. I'd also
be happy to manage the database at my own expense up until
it exceeds my abilities. Finally, while this is really a
pretty simple idea, numerous points & details still remain
uncovered. This email however, is already much too long,
so I respectfully offer the following URL for more info:
http://world1tours.com/wPress/home.html
Z.Clark
on Thu, 8 June Erik Moeller noted:
> Wikipedia is an insanely bad idea from a legal
> point of view and would never have been started
> through _any_ process which we are actually using
> in our organization to start things.
Dear Erik, could you kindly elaborate?
I'm personally favor the concept of positioning your-
self out of harms way in the first place rather than
plunging into some slime pit of leaches just because
it's the norm. So I sense you have valuable insights
here that could spare us a world of big hurt & havoc!
Z.Clark
.
On 6/6/06, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
> >
> > Great! But is it too late to discuss the scope of this wiki? We've had
> > discussions about having a separate wiki as an incubator for potential
> > new Wikimedia projects (see:
> > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikernel> or the older
> > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Seed_wiki>). Could/will this be that
> > wiki?
>
> Sure, why not?
So can/should we move all of Wikiversity there? What about Wikijunior?
Isn't Wikibooks just holding these until they are moved onto their
own domain, therefore acting like the incubator wiki? Wouldn't it be
more apposite for them to be there instead?
I'm not sure Wikijunior was originally intended to be a seperate
project, actually. I'd love for it to be seperate of Wikibooks, as we
do have a domain registered for it, but the WJ community opposed such
a move previously.
Nick
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>--- Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>One
>>use of interest to us is that if a company has a charitable giving
>>program in which employees can have an amount withheld from their
>>paychecks to the charity of their choice, the company would need the
>>charity's EIN. I'm not aware of any serious problem for a nonprofit
>>publishing this number (the American Red Cross publishes theirs on their
>>website). In fact, I've suggested putting ours out there in order to
>>make it easier for companies to add us to gift-matching programs, but
>>I'm not aware that this has been done yet.
>>
>>
>Our EIN has been on the foundation wiki for some time now:
>
>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations
>
>Of course, that whole set of pages needs to be re-done so finding things like that are easy.
>
>
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I'm glad to know that
this did get done after all. I agree about reworking the site as well.
One of the Communications committee's plans, which I need to do more
work on, is trying to develop a better idea of what should actually be
on the Foundation website as opposed to being on Meta.
--Michael Snow
Anthere wrote:
> Dunno what are SSN's and EIN...
SSN = Social Security Number
Used as an identifying number for US citizens (and legal residents) in a
lot of settings, especially financial. Knowledge of someone's number has
great potential to allow identity theft, so should not be published
under any circumstances.
EIN = Employer Identification Number
Assigned mostly to corporations for tax purposes. Not used for as many
other things as an SSN, so there's a lot less potential for misuse. One
use of interest to us is that if a company has a charitable giving
program in which employees can have an amount withheld from their
paychecks to the charity of their choice, the company would need the
charity's EIN. I'm not aware of any serious problem for a nonprofit
publishing this number (the American Red Cross publishes theirs on their
website). In fact, I've suggested putting ours out there in order to
make it easier for companies to add us to gift-matching programs, but
I'm not aware that this has been done yet.
--Michael Snow
I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
today and start moving things over.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
The Communications committee is working on coordinating the use of
sitewide notices for Wikimedia projects. This is needed for the upcoming
fundraiser, as well as other potential announcements relevant to all
projects, such as Wikimania or technical issues like single login.
It's anticipated that we will use a bot to help update these messages,
which due to the nature of the pages being edited will need to have
universal sysop privileges. Rest assured that we won't be using it for
other sysop functions. Naturally, with all of these messages we will
need help with translation, ideally before they are distributed but also
after if necessary. Please let your projects know in case they have any
questions.
Incidentally, I know the idea of a Fundraising committee is still just
getting off the ground, but could we get an idea of when we would have a
fundraiser, and for how long? In order for the site notices to be
effective, we have to maintain some downtime between uses, and we need
to be able to plan the other uses as much as possible.
--Michael Snow
Chair, Wikimedia Communications Committee
Anthere wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
> >
> >
> > With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee
> > a minimal level of openness in the committees:
> > - Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
> > against it?
> > - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
> >
> > Erik
>
>
> Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.
This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against Anthere and Angela except on matters of grave importance. The September 2004 Wikimedia Quarto states:
"To date, Tim and Michael have played a minimal part in board discussion and decisions, and there is no plan to change this. In order to ensure that the community voice is real, Jimbo has pledged, as a matter of convention, never to vote against Angela and Anthere, unless he feels that it is an issue of an absolutely fundamental change of direction for the project -- which is not likely to happen, since Angela, Anthere and Jimbo share the essential values of the community and the project. So as a practical matter, power is in the hands of the two democratically elected board members on most issues, and Jimbo defers to that."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/1
Restated in February 2005:
"Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they
wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
do."
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/20359
and in April 2005:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/2922
Jimmy wrote:
> The first resolution was something that we discussed at the
> board level but never quite came to a firm conclusion. I think that's
> one which we will revisit at some point in the future. The general idea
> was to make sure that committees not engage in excessive secrecy, which
> is a good idea, but at the same time, we did not want to encumber them
> with a lot of paranoia that they have to announce evertything all the
> time. Different board members had different perspectives on how to get
> those central points across.
Yes, different board members had different perspectives. That's to be expected, they come from different backgrounds. Some of them represent the community, some do not. But the elected members were not arguing for an "absolutely fundamental change of direction", were they?
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…