It came to my mind that we probably did not clearly announced here that
we approved the creation of Wikiversity :-)
Here is the resolution :
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Wikiversity
A couple of important points
1) there will be a domain at beta.wikiversity.org, where all new
languages may contribute and start working on translation of guidelines
etc...
2) those languages with at least 10 active participants can request a
separate domain name. As of today, I presume the english language has at
least 10 people interested, so you guys may bug Brion to ask for
en.wikiversity.org. I am not sure if it is the case for any other language.
3) All sites will be flagged "beta" in the same way that wikinews has
been for at least 6 months.
4) During these 6 months, guidelines should be developped, *in
particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that
these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in
particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common
goal and a few common non negociable rules.
5) At the end of these 6 months period, the project will be reviewed, in
particular so that the issue of collaborative research is qualified, and
if possible to define whether the beta stage is over. Reviewal will be
done by Spc.
I hope that's clear... ;-)
We wish good luck to this project.
Ant
IMHO in Official requirements for bidding cities should be
specified
that town in country with local Wikimedia chapter are "strongly"
supported in the final choice.
IMHO the first problem is an organizational problem and if the
Wikimedia's town is supported by a local chapter and other
external
chapters it means that WMF could confide in a group already
present
and organized.
At moment I could read a lot of proposed towns without connection
with local chapters (i.e. Geneva) which are only a "nice to have".
In
this moment these proposals seems to be only a brainstorming.
Regards
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: notafishz(a)gmail.com
Data: 16.08.06 17.28
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l@wikimedia.
org>,
<wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Translators"<translators-
l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
edition.
Dear all,
Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
already time to think about the next edition.
As happened in 2005 and 2006, the city hosting Wikimania in 2007
will
be chosen among whichever candidate cities dare/deign/want to
participate in the "hosting Wikimania" contest.
All information concerning how to launch a bid for your
city/location
can be found on meta:
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids
*http://meta.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Official_requirements_for_bidding_cities
Please follow the instructions on that last page to build your
bid.
The Wikimania 2007 organizing team stays at your disposal for any
questions you might have concerning the bidding process and/or the
bidding requirements.
Happy bidding!
Delphine
IMHO in Official requirements for bidding cities should be specified
that town in country with local Wikimedia chapter are "strongly"
supported in the final choice.
IMHO the first problem is an organizational problem and if the
Wikimedia's town is supported by a local chapter and other external
chapters it means that WMF could confide in a group already present
and organized.
At moment I could read a lot of proposed towns without connection
with local chapters (i.e. Geneva) which are only a "nice to have". In
this moment these proposals seems to be only a brainstorming.
Regards
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: notafishz(a)gmail.com
Data: 16.08.06 17.28
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>,
<wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Translators"<translators-
l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
edition.
Dear all,
Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
already time to think about the next edition.
As happened in 2005 and 2006, the city hosting Wikimania in 2007
will
be chosen among whichever candidate cities dare/deign/want to
participate in the "hosting Wikimania" contest.
All information concerning how to launch a bid for your
city/location
can be found on meta:
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids
*http://meta.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Official_requirements_for_bidding_cities
Please follow the instructions on that last page to build your
bid.
The Wikimania 2007 organizing team stays at your disposal for any
questions you might have concerning the bidding process and/or the
bidding requirements.
Happy bidding!
Delphine
Dear candidates,
thank you for your cooperation, we the Election Officials are now
going to the next step; your candidacy confirmation.
As the way to reach you most surely and confidentially, we have chosen
e-mail, precisely via wikimedia meta mail. Please make it sure for now
if your mail address preferences on meta has been already properly
authenticated. Further information about confirmation will be provided
to you by email from one of us via meta e-mail.
If you have no contact from us until the next Monday, please mail us.
In that case, we recommend you to use the same confirmation you set
for your meta mail for avoiding confusion, we'll try to reach you in
our all efforts though.
Sincerely,
--
Kizu Naoko
Wikimedia Election Committee, 2006.
There might be already a discussion about this somewhere, dunno:
Before wikiversity really starts, it might make sense to think about the
license. There could be better choices than GFDL for such a project.
greetings,
elian
My remark about any board members being dot com millionaires was entirely
unsubstantiated. I haven't seen anyones tax form. In fact I had no factual
information whatsoever that this is the case, and I now know it is not, as
Danny told us. I realize now that this remark was insensitive by itself,
something I accuse others of, and not helping to improve any situation. I
also haven't seen how much anyone earned on keynote speeches, so that was a
suggestive remark as well.
I really should have gone to bed a few hours earlier and have postponed any
reaction to after a good night sleep. Too late, damage done.
So I sincerely apologize for any remarks about the financial situation of
others than Anthere on he board.
----------------------------------------------------------
Still I Anthere could have gotten a more cordial answer, instead of Jimbo's
factual remark and a joke by someone else.
In my opinion Anthere is extremely valuable to the organisation. I, and many
others I'm sure, are proud of the prominent role of women in the
organisation. She, Angela and many others function as a role model.
Anthere quit/lost (no idea which) her job while being a board member, as she
professed publicly some time ago, so I can quote that. She also told she
works nearly full time on the project and given her omnipresence, this might
well be an understatement. I think we should be grateful she is putting so
much time in the project. And I am sure everyone is. But maybe we ought to
taken a moment to discuss the consequences.
If I remember correctly Anthere responded to a question from the audience.
Candid as she always is, she explained her financial situation (again). So I
feel I can comment on that some more.
I don't know many mothers with three young children who can afford to spend
so much time pro bono. Of course there must be more Wikimedians in a similar
situation, who show as much commitment. Still I feel the organisation has a
special obligation towards its official representatives. If only people who
are financially independent can afford to work for the organisation in
central positions, and others do it to their own detriment, I think the
organisation (not on purpose but still) puts a bias on its central workforce
which is unwanted. These issues have been discussed before. But we have
grown from a small village to a large city, and our budget has increased
with it. We can even afford to delay fundraisers so it is not that we are
entirely unable to even discuss this due to lack of funds. Brad commented to
this effect.
I have no idea how other non profit organisations handle this, but frankly I
think we should make up our own mind.
Jimmy:
> Well, it is not allowed, not just by our bylaws as I understand it, but by
the law. This is not a matter of anyone treating Anthere in any bad way.
I suppose you mean the US law. We could have an interesting discussion of
what the consequences are of the foundation being based in the US, but I
suppose it would confuse matters now.
Danny:
> Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived as a
potential conflict of interests.
If someone would get rich of it, sure. And people will complain, no doubt.
If the allowance was something close to the minimum wage of the country of
residence (at least for countries that have a decent minimum wage policy,
which if difficult to objectify) I'm not sure many would complain though.
Danny:
> In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board
membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the
organization.
One of the reasons I have my reservations about the US leading the world by
example is how they often seem to fail to separate money and politics.
Should I comment on how a US presidential candidate also has little change
to serve his country if not backed up by millions of dollars to get his
message across? The world can learn a lot from some of their core values,
but they could learn from those of others. The notion that people would have
to buy into non-profits is pretty detrimental and extreme to me. I would
expect rich people who give a generous donation to be honoured for it. I
would not expect in most cases they are the experts per se on how to spend
it well for the cause at hand.
Brad:
> If your life circumstances are such that you can make ends meet, the most
demanding issue for your involvement in Wikimedia issues is time, not money.
I agree, but who draws the line of what is needed to make ends meet? A
tricky question. Should we leave it to the foundation to deal with this
discretely?
Erik Zachte
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Oh, and if quotes are copyrightable (and we can only use them under
>> "fair use"), please explain to me how Wikiquote can exist?
>>
> I did not say that quotes were copyrightable; you cannot claim copyright
> on something that is already copyright by someone else, or is in the
> public domain. I said, "...unless the work is in the public domain the
> use of any quotation from it is an example of fair use" Wikiquote can
> exist because of fair use.
IANAL, which is why I'm crossposting to foundation-l so that someone can
clarify this for us; does Wikiquote really only exist because of the
"fair use" provision in US law?
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
For those who took part online, but weren't subscribed to wikimania-l ...
Wikimania-l will be a social list for past and future wikimaniacs.
Consider subscribing if you took part this year or last and want a way
to stay in touch with other Wikimaniacs, or are thinking about
attending sometime in the future.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: Wikimania wrapup and thanks
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <wikimania-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Dear Wikimaniacs near and far,
Thanks to all for making Wikimania an amazing event this year. It was
more fun than a barrel of edit-warriors from Gdansk... who probably
showed up Saturday night. We had over 450 attendees, a quarter of
them from outside the US; over 50 journalists & media groups on-site;
85 presentations, workshops, and panels; 25 posters and 40 last-minute
lightning presentations; two great parties including robots and
holograms; a scavenger hunt full of info <hmm>; a Web 1.0 elevator
pitch-off judged by time-travelling VCs, Wikimania Awards for great
free-content media and writing judged by Wikipedians and Creative
Commoners, and the 17th annual world Calvinball championship. And 40
amazing volunteers who helped things run smoothly all year.
You can find media archives online. We have raw video for the two
main rooms, but this is not yet online; however audio is available for
most sessions:
http://wikimania2006.wikime=dia.org/wiki/Archives
Video of the Web 1.0 elevator pitch-off will be available soon (Finne?)
We are working on the proceedings; some full presentations are
available already, and the discussions are not over -- all
presentations are open to comment. A document with most of the
abstracts in one package will be available soon online.
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:Index
Finally, your feedback is appreciated, whether you attended in person
or remotely, in English or in other languages :
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Post_conference_comments
Summer regards,
SJ
PS -- if you are inspired to launch a bid for your own favorite city
to host Wikimania next year, rough guidelines are up and cities are
being selected within the next 6 weeks (!!):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids
PPS - if you couldn't make it to Wikimania, and haven't filled your
wiki quotient for the summer, there is yet hope. Wikisym is coming up
next week, in Denmark:
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/
It seems that amongst the most important and urgent issues we have to
fix, are.... the bylaws.
And after thinking deeply about it, I have decided that
* I would like the feedback of the legal-able on the current version.
* I would like the feedback of the community on the whole "membership"
issue.
'cause right now, the "membership" issue is in limbo. And being in
limbo, the new bylaws can't be approved.
If you guys could come up with a
* decent
* reasonable
* legally feasible
* technically implementable
solution...
That would be really cool.
Please try to not troll. This is serious business. But for the legal
able, please avoid editing the live version, but rather edit the
discussion page. Be practical (submit a solution rather than just
complain or grumble).
Of course, current candidates are *more* than welcome to have an opinion
on this.
It is here ------> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws_update
A user asked about the broken sidebar translation at chr.cherokee.org. I
don't have the ability to alter the site. Here is what's there now:
ᎾᎥ ᏄᎾᏓᎸ ᎾᎿᎢ - nav nunadalv nahnai "community places" (wrong syntax - in
this usage should be "nav nunadalvyi" - "place of the communities"
nahnai can be used but its not as concise. Community Portal is more
correct and translates better)
ᏗᏤᎢ - ditsei "news" OK
ᏗᎦᏁᏟᏴᏍᏗ ᏝᏱᎪᎯᎩ - diganetliyvsdi tlayigohigi "it changes recently"
(perhaps OK, but I don't talk this way)
ᎠᎵᏍᏕᎸᏗ - alisdelvdi "support" OK
ᎠᎵᏍᎪᎸᏙᏗ - alisgolvdodi "donate" OK
Here's a translation of all of it with modern words in use to describe
website links, etc.
== Cherokee Sidebar Translation ==
ᎠᏂᎩᏍᏗ ᏥᏳ (navigate)
* ᎤᏆᏓᏛ ᏄᎬᏫᏳᏒ (main page)
* ᏂᏕᎦᎵᏍᏔᏂᏙᎲ (goings-on/events)
* ᏚᏆᏓᏛ ᏂᎦᏛ (all pages)
* Wikimedia ᏗᏤᎢ (Wikimedia news)
* ᎾᎥ ᏄᎾᏓᎸ ᎠᏍᏚᎢᏍᏗ (community portal)
* ᎠᎵᏱᎵᏒ ᎧᏃᎮᏗ ᏂᏕᎦᎵᏍᏔᏂᏙᎲ (current events)
* ᎾᏞᎬ ᏗᎦᏁᏟᏴᏍᏗ (recent changes)
* ᎤᏍᏆᏂᎪᏗ ᎤᏆᏓᏛ (mystery (random) page)
* ᎠᎵᏍᏕᎸᏗ (help)
* ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗ (donations)
ᎠᏯᏍᏗ (search)
* ᎠᎾᎩᏍᏗ (go, do it, execute)
* ᎠᏯᏍᏗ (search)
ᎪᎱᏍᏗ ᎬᏔᏂᏓᏍᏗ ᎧᏁᏌᎢ (box of tools)
* ᎦᏙ ᎤᏍᏗ ᏗᏕᎬᏔᏛ ᎠᎭᏂ (what links here)
* ᎪᎱᏍᏗ ᎠᎾᏓᏛᏂ ᏗᎦᏁᏟᏴᏍᏗ (related changes)
* ᏗᎦᎴᏴᏗᏍᎩ ᏗᎵᏍᎪᎸᏙᏗ (user contributions)
* ᎦᎸᎳᏗᏢ ᎠᎧᎵᎢ ᎠᏝᎥᎢ (upload file)
* ᎤᏤᎵᏛ ᏚᏆᏓᏛ (special pages)
* ᏗᎦᎴᏴᏗᏍᎩ ᎪᏪᎵ ᏫᎦᏅᏅ (send user an email)
* ᎦᎴᏯᏛ ᏅᎬᎪᏔᏅᎯ (print edition)
* ᏂᎪᎯᎸ ᏕᎬᏔᏛ (permanent link)
ᎭᏫᎾᏗᏢ ᏐᎢ ᏗᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᏗ (other languages)
You guys make the call.
Jeff