Wikimedia-l November 2007

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

137 participants
102 discussions

[Foundation-l] Recent resolutions posted
by Erik Moeller 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

The Board resolutions from the last meeting are now all public on: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions Perhaps the most interesting one from a community point of view is the "Philip Greenspun illustrations project", about which a separate announcement will be posted shortly. Erik Möller Executive Secretary Wikimedia Foundation

10 21

[Foundation-l] [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court
by Florence Devouard 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

An injunction was sought against WMF to force it to remove content from the french wikipedia, that the plaintiffs deemed defamatory and infringing on their privacy. The plaintiffs also sought 63,000 Euros in damages, and requested from the WMF to provide contact information of the anonymous editor responsible for the edit. The court stated that the Foundation is a hosting provider in the sense of article 6 of the LCEN ("Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique") and as such has no obligation to keep watch on the content that it hosts and can not be held accountable for the content added by contributors to the encyclopedia. The same law states that hosting providers must remove illegal content when notified it exists. In this case, the dispute centred largely around when the Foundation was notified. The plaintiffs believed they had notified the Foundation via e-mail, although the Foundation has no record of the e-mails having been received. The court did not consider e-mails sufficient notification. Also, the court stated that when a hosting provider is notified about libelous content, it only has to remove content that is obviously libelous. In this case, the lawsuit was filed before the Foundation was officially alerted. As soon as the Foundation received official notification, it immediately removed the content in question. The court also stated that once the Foundation was notified of the problem, it acted swiftly and removed the content. As a result, WMF won the lawsuit and will not have to pay for any damages. The request to provide the contact information of the editor responsible for the edit was also dismissed. -------- This is very good news for the Foundation. We maintain that WMF is not the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the Wikipedia projects (and obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our position upheld and supported in a court of law. In general, it is extremely important that we get used to quickly remove any defamatory content, or privacy-invasive content, as soon as it is brought to our attention. "We", in this case, mean "all of us". Editors of Wikipedia, volunteers on OTRS, staff members. The more we care about people requests of this type, the more we will be recognized as a community caring about the truth and caring about the individual. Whilst we must not fall into easy censorship and let ourselves be pressured to remove information which should be available to humanship just because it does not please a couple of people, it is also important to remember that we are a top 10 website, widely read everywhere and that any erroneous information on people may have huge consequences in their private and professional lives. Being available to answer readers concerns *is* important. There is no gain for anyone to get in a court to solve such issues (except for lawyers in fact). Most conflicts of that sort could be solved through communication. Whilst the current case was not strictly speaking a biography page, it involved living people. So, my email is also a reminder that policies such as the "biographies of living people" in the english wikipedia are very helpful to both protect our projects and help making sure our content is as reliable as possible. Let us seek to avoid violence when violence can be avoided :-) I suggest that every project get a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons And consider building such policies in the near future. A few links for more information * http://wikimedia.fr/index.php/Communiqués_de_presse/La_Wikimedia_Foundation… (in french) * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/2_novembre_2007#Proc.C3.A8… (in french) * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy (in english) Florence Devouard The following firm represented the Foundation in this lawsuit: HUGOT AVOCATS www.hugot.fr

6 8

Re: [Foundation-l] Recent resolutions posted
by Sue Reed 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

If Jan-Bart de Vreede and Jimmy Wales are reappointed, does that mean that the Board does not plan currently on finding anyone new to bring in to the board on an appointed basis? Also, is there anything in the Foundation bylaws about how long a Board member can serve or can they be continually reappointed and/or re-elected? Similar question about whether or not there is anything about how long someone can serve as Chair, Vice-Chair, etc. or can those be indefinite as long as they are supported by the Board? Finally, in the future, it would be helpful to have a listing of the actual names of the people who voted in favor (or against if that were the case). Historically, it would make the record of each vote more accurate. And/or some note regarding who was at the meeting linked to the resolution if someone wanted to go check. Are there any minutes from the Oct. 6-7 meeting available? Sue Anne sreed1234(a)yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2007 10:43:32 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Recent resolutions posted The Board resolutions from the last meeting are now all public on: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions Perhaps the most interesting one from a community point of view is the "Philip Greenspun illustrations project", about which a separate announcement will be posted shortly. Erik Möller Executive Secretary Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won in court
by peter boelens 03 Nov '07

03 Nov '07

"We maintain that WMF is not the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the Wikipedia projects (and obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our position upheld and supported in a court of law." I guess that was one of the compelling reasons to put aside the claim. Has the Board considered the implications on this policy from the moment the Foundation starts paying for content, as foreseen in the Greenspan illustration project? Peter boelens

5 6

[Foundation-l] [ANNOUNCEMENT] Greenspan illustration project
by Cary Bass 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

Cross posting to Commons-l and Foundation-l (forgive the duplication): The Greenspan Illustration Project What is it? The Wikimedia Foundation has received a donation from Philip Greenspun for the purpose of creating and improving illustrations on Wikimedia. The Board has decided to accept his donation of $US20,000 for this special purpose. This is the first time the Foundation has been directly involved in funded content creation, although the German chapter's experience in winning a government grant to write articles on sustainable development has helped pave the way. The Foundation wants a "hands-off" minimal administration role with the bulk of the work of organizing the project and creating the content to be completed by members of our community. Since this is the first time we've done this, we're not sure how it will go. This is a bit experimental and we ask for your patience and enthusiasm to help make it a success. Brianna Laugher (<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pfctdayelise>) will be coordinating the project, with my help as the Foundation's Volunteer Coordinator. How will it run? Since Philip's kind donation is a lot of money and we're planning to pay around US$40 per illustration (with some lower and higher amounts, see details to follow), we want to progress the project in stages. Starting out with a small number of 50 requested illustrations, we'll look at our results and modify and improve it for successive stages. The project will flow along as follows: * Create list of requested illustrations. * Open illustration requests on issue tracking software * Users will self-assign requests, signaling his or her intent to create that illustration. * On creation and approval, the user is paid the amount as set in the original request. Things to note: * The list of requests will be approved by Brianna, in order that balance exists among "things any decent reference work needs"; "things the Wikimedia community requests"; and "things we nearly have, or have poor versions of". * Approval: a review group will be formed in order to provide assessment of submitted images. The main checks will be 1) editor's original work and acceptable license, 2) correct rendering on MediaWiki and 3) how well the image depicts the requested item. No image will be accepted that do not pass all three of these checks. * Other checks will be recommended (e.g. language-neutral version). * The payment system is not yet finalized. How you can help If you are interested in suggesting illustrations to be created, you don't have long to wait: soon there will be some pages on Meta where you can get involved. We will write to foundation-l when the pages are ready for your input. If you are interested in being part of the review group, please email Brianna as follows: brianna.laugher AT gmail DOT com The benefits This project can have two good outcomes. One, we get illustrations we wouldn't otherwise have, or wouldn't otherwise have had so quickly. Another benefit is that we can use this project as a way to encourage and launch new people into the "illustrator community". Creating high-quality SVGs is not a skill a lot of people have immediately, but may be developed fairly quickly. While many people might be vaguely interested in it but no more, a monetary incentive might be enough to push them to act, and learn, and create. Some of the image requests will be for smaller amounts (US$15) for relatively simpler illustrations—these will be specifically targeted to newcomers to encourage them to get involved. At the end of this project we might have $20,000 worth of illustrations, but the value of the content creating community will potentially be a lot higher. We expect a side benefit to this project will be the creation/finding and maintenance of good documentation for specific tasks using tools like Inkscape. More details See the project specifications at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/51/WMF_Greenspun_Illustr… -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 727.231.0101 Fax: 727.258.0207 E-Mail: cbass(a)wikimedia.org

5 6

[Foundation-l] Google Webmaster Tools and Foundation projects
by Brian 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

Given that Google is the single largest contributor of traffic to all Wikimedia projects, it seems that the simple act of signing up to Google Webmaster Tools would provide a vast amount of data that Google is already collecting on the projects for free. This data is extremely interesting, and includes: - The exact phrases used in external links to your site - The top search queries used to access your site, in the following csv format: > Site Information,Location,Search Type,Top search queries,Top search > query clicks > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, (India) google.co.in,Web > Search,"[wikipedia:1][universal access to knowledge:6]["the world's best > encyclopedia":6]" - This includes the position of your site in the results for that query - The PageRank of all of your pages; the distribution of the PageRank of all of your pages; your page with the highest PageRank - The number of people who have subscribed to the rss feeds on your site using Google products that allow this. - Something akin to the inverse document frequency of the words in your site and the words used in external links to your site, as computed by GoogleBot How this would work: 1. A Wikimedia representative creates a Google account for the Foundation 2. Each language version of each project is added. This may be a one time labor intensive process, or it might be more straightforward. I have no way of testing this right now. 3. Click the "Download data for all sites" button. 4. Profit ;) It seems that releasing this data does not violate the Foundation privacy policy. The search query data is collected under an agreement between the user and Google, before they ever enter the domain of a Foundation project. That point aside, there are no unique identifiers that link one user to a set of queries, only a relationship between a set of queries and a country. There is no specific information on when a query was performed. The community will no doubt come up with interesting visualizations and applications of this data. Articles that are receiving a relatively high amount of traffic but are of a relatively low level of quality can be targeted for improvement, for example. I would volunteer to automate as much of this as possible, including downloading the data at certain intervals. Please discuss! :) /Brian

2 8

[Foundation-l] OLPC Khairat Chronicle
by Erik Moeller 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

The "One Laptop Per Child" project has put up an interesting report about a pilot deployment in Khairat, India: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Khairat_Chronicle -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

6 9

[Foundation-l] Are the online donation reports comparable?
by Robert Rohde 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

The Foundation has http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse for the current fundraiser, http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/list for 2006 and this year before the current drive, and the legacy system, http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/legacy/ongoing/, for donations from early 2005 and overlapping part of 2006. I would like to know if these are comparable in their comprehensiveness, or are there variations in what was included over time? Also, as of now, do all donations get included or are they strictly limited to what gets processed online? (In other words, if someone sends the Foundation a physical check, does that get added in?) Thanks. -Robert Rohde

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Supporting languages is supporting people
by Dovi Jacobs 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

I happen to agree with Gerard that the Wikimedia Foundation does indeed support languages through the very act of supporting Wikipedias. I also agree that the foundation should be more proud of this fact and announce it happily. If we are doing something so positive, why not let people know about it, and why not even include it as one of our goals? It may not be our primary goal, but it certainly plays a supporting role towards reaching that goal ("the sum of all knowledge"). It is yet another gem in the WMF's crown. That being said, I don't really understand what, specifically, Gerard is asking for. In what specific ways does the foundation need to "adapt" in order to meet the needs of smaller languages? "Resources" and "investments" usually imply money, but in what specific ways does Gerard think money can be used to support smaller languages? Please elaborate. Finally, Mark Williamson's comment: >> I imagine it would be easier if those people would be allowed to get Wikipedias instead of having to wait for years. This is as opposed to Gerard: "we insist on a good user experience so a localised user interface is a must." Experience proves that Mark is right: Many of today's successful Wikipedia's began without much of a local interface at all. Instead, people just got to work, and the interface got translated bit-by-bit along the way by admins, in exactly the same way a Wikipedia gets built as a whole by editors. Not allowing people to simply "get to work" on a Wikipedia, and requiring that there be "several hoops to jump through before a new language gets its own project" actually works against smaller languages. Instead, just let people get started! If the project fails, simply freeze it until speakers of the language come along who want to try to build it again. To conclude, if there are positive ways that money could be used to support smaller languages, then the foundation should consider doing so. But regardless of monetary issues, people should be allowed to get to work on smaller wikipedias without too many hurdles. Dovi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

7 12

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikijunior - State of the Project
by Andrew Whitworth 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

I don't mean to sound accusative or argumenative with this post, so I apologize in advance if that's the way it "sounds" over email. In 2005 the Beck Foundation contributed a substantial sum of money ($10,000) in the form of a grant for the development and promotion of Wikijunior books. To the best of my knowledge, that money has never been properly accounted for. At the very least, what happened to that money and how it was used to help Wikijunior specifically has never been made public. Somehow I feel like it wasnt intended for that money to be rolled over into the "Wikipedia growth expenditures" portion of the budget, so I would hate to hear that it silently was. We could perhaps raise the bigger issue that finances have never been made as transparent or well-reported as they should be. That is a different topic for a different thread. I would be hesitant to pursue any additional forms of grant money for Wikijunior until there is some assurance that the money won't disappear into the abyss. Also, like Randy mentioned, one of the books (Wikijunior Big Cats) was published on Lulu press, but Jimbo personally had that book removed from the website citing a vague series of "concerns" and asked for more discussion on the matter first. We asked for input from the board on several occasions, and received no helpful replies. I'm not really going on any warpaths about this until the fundraiser is over (I know it's taking up a lot of our collective attention right now), So long as the issue of Wikijunior has been raised I do feel that these are a few points worth considering for future discussion. I would like to get Wikijunior in to a good place early next year so that we can push for it to be used during the following school year. The things that randy suggested, such as the read-only domain would be key to making this happen. --Andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct

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 November 2007