Wikimedia-l January 2007

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

122 participants
113 discussions

[Foundation-l] Communications issues (was Re: This is not an Advertisement @ pgunn)
by Michael Snow 04 Jan '07

04 Jan '07

James Hare wrote: > For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication, > because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad. Others have said it already, but since I'm the chair of the Communications Committee, I think it's appropriate for me to add my apology for the difficulties in communication between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community. It's clear that the level of communication is not adequate, and I share the frustration that I think many of us feel. Because of the scope of the problem, I think it's worthwhile to explore it at some length. Part of the problem is a lack of resources, both human and technical, in the communications area as much as in any other. That sort of thing is, of course, exactly what this fundraiser is trying to address. As has been noted, we've barely managed sufficient communication to merely coordinate what we're going to do, let alone communicate those intentions more broadly. Although there has been some previous communication that produced disappointingly little discussion. The community seems much more inclined to give feedback when the Foundation does something as opposed to when it talks about planning things. Some of that feedback is over the issue of advertising, with various attempts to draw lines in the silicon and declare them crossed or not crossed. Honestly, it reminds me greatly of a typical dispute over competing points of view on a Wikipedia talk page. It is not resolvable by simply insisting on a particular interpretation, and in the meantime the Foundation has to make decisions in order to continue operating. Wikimedia is committed to maintaining a neutral point of view, as is well known, and I believe that value has not been compromised in any material way. Perceptions are admittedly important too, but they do not always reflect reality, as anyone familiar with the media coverage of Wikipedia can tell you. What is advertising and whether we should have it are important considerations, and have been debated at length, but it's not a fundamental value in the same way that free content or neutrality are. Anyone who's convinced that our actual content has been compromised already by the recent decisions is welcome to try and demonstrate how that's the case. A wise person once told me that basically all longstanding members of the community are outliers on certain issues. I know that it's true for me, and I'm sure that it's also true even of people closer to the center of Wikimedia, including Jimbo himself. There will always be some matter on which your personal viewpoint does not prevail, even though you think it's an important point and use your most persuasive arguments to get that across. In any group project that consists of more than just your ideological clones, this is something we have to deal with. Here we do share a few fundamental goals, and hope that people can put aside other agendas to work on them. If upon closer examination you find that you cannot adopt these goals, or that the path to them includes elements that you absolutely cannot live with, then we wish you well in your other endeavors. Meanwhile, we have a number of communications needs, and some go beyond communicating just with the immediate community of Wikimedia projects. I'd like to mention some of those to remind people of the many tasks being handled, often unseen and unappreciated, and invite additional help. We have the general public to communicate with, for example through the volume of email Wikimedia receives, which many volunteers take turns responding to (some of you may know this as the OTRS system). This is frequently overloaded, especially in English, but through a valiant effort we actually cleaned out the backlog about a month ago. Of course, over the holidays the emails have built up again, and we need to renew the effort. Anyone willing to help with this for a few months, please contact UninvitedCompany, the chair of the OTRS subcommittee, or else the contact for your particular language. Good customer service skills are a key here. Communicating with the project communities is also a challenge, because they are so widely distributed. There is no central place to reach everyone, and many differing expectations about what "affects" the community and how it should be notified. (I use quotes because everything affects the community, but notice doesn't seem to be expected every time we buy servers, as long as the site runs.) The solution is for the community to help spread the word about anything that might be of importance. Some people may be familiar with The Wikipedia Signpost on en.wikipedia, or the Kurier on de.wikipedia. These are community efforts to grow and build on, and more like them should be encouraged. I know the TIME honor is so last year, but "You" are the only way Wikimedia can ever communicate with its projects. Contributions like Walter's Wikizine or Improv's LSS are invaluable (and as we regret the latter's departure, thanks to BirgitteSB for committing to keep it going). Returning to the public side, the Wikimedia Foundation gets a number of requests to provide speakers at various functions. Some want Jimbo, but he's not able to fill them all, and many of these requests would be happy with community representatives. A few of these may be large conferences that can offer to cover travel expenses, but often it's a smaller function simply hoping that someone local would be available to meet with them. We're looking for someone who can volunteer to coordinate public speaking assignments, both handling requests and organizing a pool of available speakers. If you're interested in doing this, please let me know (in the meantime, if people who have presented on Wikimedia subjects can update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presentations it would be appreciated). --Michael Snow

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Communications issues
by Michael Snow 04 Jan '07

04 Jan '07

Gatto Nero wrote: > 2007/1/3, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>: > >> Part of the problem is a lack of resources, both human and technical, in >> the communications area as much as in any other. That sort of thing is, >> of course, exactly what this fundraiser is trying to address. > > I'm sorry, 'cause of language differences maybe I've not understood: > are you saying that "lack of resources" is one of the reasons why are > we collecting money? Yes. > This means, "people needs to be payed"? (I'm asking, 'cause I'm not > sure, that's not an accusation) See "human and technical" above. There's a need for servers, and there's a need to hire staff to do the things that volunteers can't, won't, or aren't trained to do. > In the recent past, I remember a user answering to me and other > italians "Communities doesn't matter. Funding does. Capisce?". > How does this phrase should be interpreted? > Let's think about a new user who's starting to communicate with the > Foundation, and he's been answered in this way. > Obviously, I don't think this is an isolated case. I don't know who said it or how it was intended to be interpreted. At face value, it's certainly not an appropriate expression of the Foundation's position. However, I'm surprised that you would take a random comment like this, that sounds like it was made on IRC, as an authoritative statement. A "new user" who wants to "communicate with the Foundation" is looking in entirely the wrong place there, and I'm not sure how a truly new user would receive such an answer (as opposed to someone used to getting information passed by word of mouth in a chat room). As I mentioned with regard to OTRS, good customer service skills are expected, and we do work with new volunteers so they understand not to give such inappropriate responses. > As far as I remember, I have no memories at all of reading a > communication "signed" by the CommComm. Better: I have no memories at > all of reading a communicaton about Foundation's issues or problem. The former may not be surprising, although there have been some (like http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/htdig/foundation-l/2006-June/007393.html). In part, the Communications Committee has been involved in coordinating messages that do not necessarily come with its "signature", like the material surrounding the closure of the French Wikiquote. Meanwhile, if you've been subscribed to this list, and truly have no memory of reading communications about the Foundation's issues, I really can't help you with that. > Why has there not been a periodical mail/message/zine/whatever > summarizing what's going the Foundation? Lack of time, attention, and resources. Anyone who wants to try to resurrect the Wikimedia Quarto or do something similar is welcome to. There have been lots of suggestions about things Wikimedia could be doing, many of them useful, both as to communications and other issues. These are nice, but simply adding more tasks to an already overloaded to-do list doesn't produce a lot of progress. That's why we're asking for help. We need more people like Improv or BirgitteSB, who are willing to take a good idea and implement it. Ideas are cheap compared to action. --Michael Snow

4 3

[Foundation-l] Awards show hate us
by Nicholas Moreau 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

We may be the 9th most viewed site in the US. We may be the second Google result for about 90% of their winners. But the Academy Awards, SAG Awards, and Golden Globes all rejected us from their red carpets. Getting free photos of A-list celebrities is not as easy as it should be. In the forms, I honestly stated that we had a Rolling Stone photographer on the docket to take pics, who incidentally was fine with working for us for free. Either that means Rolling Stone isn't as legendary a publication as it makes itself out to be, or they don't trust us, or they don't want free content images released, as that would peave off the WireImages of the world. Just so everyone knows, Nick PS : Any British photographers on this list? I'm going to be trying for some of those award shows soon.

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] [Wmfcc-l] News flash: WMF is a charity!
by David Gerard 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

On 02/01/07, Michael Billington <michael.billington(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Slight problem I encountered, adding that HTML/wikimarkup un-modified to the > [[MediaWiki:Copyright]] message makes a few broken links. (at least it did > on Wikiversity) To do the same thing on any wiki, you have to swap some of > the {{loaclurl}}s with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/, so that the Wikipedia > articles will still link, rather than pointing to articles on your project > which don't exist. Cheers -- Michael Billington Ah yes. Whoops! Please note! (I must say, changing a message on every single page of the site that generates over half our hits gave me a certain amount of ... trepidation.) If your wiki's language isn't English, of course, you probably want the links to "non-profit" and "charity" to be to those articles in the wiki's own language. - d.

4 7

Re: [Foundation-l] This is not an Advertisement
by Pat Gunn 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises people like me, who have been on the project for many years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply about the project, and feel that accepting advertising, whether it be for brand identity or a specific product, as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion (and others involved) that the values of the community *do* have a substantial number of people who will never accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard with the other. I greatly regret the wrong turn the community has made here, for it is not something I will live with and stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get. It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch, I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end through commercial entanglement after being acquired: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder Goodbye. --- Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org

15 24

[Foundation-l] Illegal IP blocking on the Dutch wikipedia
by Walter van Kalken 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

Wanting to edit on the nl.wikipedia I found my IP blocked. All of the IP's of my Thai internet provider are blocked it seems. So I cannot edit nl.wikipedia! On nl: user RonaldB has a private project of AUTOBLOCKING all open proxies. All Thai providers use open proxies. So now I am blocked and cannot log in. RonaldB never got agreement on nl: for this nor is this a wikimedia policy to stop all users in Thailand from editing. Still I AM FUCKING BLOCKED AGAIN. Waerth

7 11

Re: [Foundation-l] Back to basics @ Danny
by daniwo59＠aol.com 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

In a message dated 1/2/2007 2:50:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, walter(a)vankalken.net writes: Danny do I have your permission to repost this mail in the Dutch villagepump? Yes

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Illegal IP blocking on the Dutch wikipedia
by annabel 02 Jan '07

02 Jan '07

Waerth, Ronalvd has the support of the sysops on wikipedia NL. He is doing a great job by blocking open proxies of which we get a lot of vandalism. Surely he doesn't block all open proxies (only the ones we need to block). Please contact him for a solution, instead of posting to this mailing list. Greetings, Annabel (@wikipedia.be) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

7 11

[Foundation-l] Christmas lull
by Tim Starling 02 Jan '07

02 Jan '07

http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png The quiestest two days for Wikimedia were the 24th and 25th, straddling week 51 and 52 on the graph. A lull in request rate has continued throughout the week. We're still seeing significantly more traffic now than we were in the middle of the year, but I have to wonder if it might not have been better, in hindsight, to move the fundraising drive back a couple of weeks. -- Tim Starling

6 6

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wmfcc-l] News flash: WMF is a charity!
by David Gerard 02 Jan '07

02 Jan '07

[cc to wikien-l, wikipedia-l and foundation-l - this is why the text on the bottom of each page on en:wp is suddenly a bit longer ... I shoulda found the MediaWiki message in question a month ago!] On 08/12/06, florencedevouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >>On 07/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>I want to get your ideas on how we can take this message forward as part of >>>our PR blitz for the fund drive. As I think back to the Atlantic and New >>>Yorker pieces, and even Mick Brown's piece, "the good ones" - "charity" >>>wasn't really an emphasis. We have been a "phenomenon" - but not a >>>phenomenal charity. > >The message at the bottom of every page of English Wikipedia says: > >"Wikipedia(r) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." > >How about: > >"Wikipedia(r) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, > >Inc., a US-registered 501(c)3 tax-deductible nonprofit charity." > >Or something like that. > You got it right David ! > With a link under us-registered 501 : > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations This is actually a Mediawiki message, [[MediaWiki:Copyright]] - so anyone with admin access on a given wiki can change it once we have a translation. I've just put the above text (with link) on en:wp since Florence approves of it. If the wording is not *precisely* legally correct, could Brad or Danny please correct it promptly! The text I've placed (a curious mix of wikitext and plain HTML) is: All text is available under the terms of the <a class='internal' href="{{localurl:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License}}" title="Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. (See <b><a class='internal' href="{{localurl:Wikipedia:Copyrights}}" title="Wikipedia:Copyrights">Copyrights</a></b> for details.) <br /> Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the <a href="http://www.wikimediafoundation.org">Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.</a>, a US-registered <a class='internal' href="{{localurl:501(c)}}" title="501(c)(3)">501(c)(3)</a> <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations">tax-deductible</a> <a class='internal' href="{{localurl:Non-profit organization}}" title="Non-profit organization">nonprofit</a> <a href="{{localurl:Charitable organization}}" title="Charitable organization">charity.<br /> Note the links to [[501(c)]], [[Non-profit organization]] and [[Charitable organization]] as well. > Also, on Foundationwiki, at the bottom, we have "About Wikimedia Foundation" > Instead, we can change it in "[[About Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia > Foundation]] is a us registered blablabla Wiki admins and translators, please? The essential message is that this is a charity, not a for-profit company. - d.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l January 2007