Forwarded message from Sue Gardner:
------
Hi folks,
I am delighted to introduce the Wikimedia Foundation’s new office
manager and new PA. These are our first hires for the San Francisco
headquarters.
Our new office manager is Erica Ortega. Erica comes to us from COPIA:
The American Center for Wine Food & the Arts, a Napa nonprofit where she
was executive administrator to the president. She was previously board
relations manager for COPIA, and prior to that was office manager for a
nonprofit charter schools management organization called Envision
Schools, and benefits/payroll assistant for the University of California
at Berkeley.
Our new PA (personal assistant to the Executive Director) is Cheryl
Steffen. Cheryl has just relocated to San Francisco from Chicago, where
she was executive assistant to the CEO at a company called Urban Retail
Properties. Prior to that, she was a copywriter and executive assistant
to the COO at Aon Corporation, and a circulation assistant at the
American Medical Association.
Please join me in welcoming Erica and Cheryl to the team. And many
thanks to Mona Venkateswaran and Erik Möller for participating in the
hiring process: their support has been much appreciated.
I will be announcing additional new hires in the coming weeks.
Thanks,
Sue Gardner
-----
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
Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes
racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus,
against the Jewish people themselves. I seems like Commons does not have a
NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create
one. I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page
and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have
the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before
it is released to the press in Israel.
Thanks,
Yoni Weiden
aka Yonidebest@hewiki
Greetings,
Tomorrow's issue of Stern Magazin (think about it as a slightly softer
version of Newsweek or TIME, more or less) has Wikipedia on its cover.
They compared 50 articles from de.wp to the 15-volume edition of the
Brockhaus publishing house to each other (the test was done by
experts, of course :) ) and posted the results in a press release,
pointing to the article:
http://www.presseportal.de/pm/6329/1096919/gruner_jahr_stern
The overall score for Wikipedia was 1,7 on a scale from 1 (best) to 6
(worst), Brockhaus got a 2,7.
In only 6 out of 50 articles, Brockhaus was considered to be better,
in 43 cases, it was Wikipedia.
We were especially good in the topic of current events (how
surprizing) and .... Correctness.
We only suck at readability right now, we are too tough for people
unfamiliar with a topic.
All in all, I think this is excellent news that deserves to be
discussed and celebrated. Of course, we should not make this
journalistic article to be a direct statement from us, since there
might be flaws in methodology. And a test sample of 50 is also not
that large.
Mathias
Recently, after 44 days, the present fundraiser surpassed the income
($1.04M) derived from the 34 day main phase of the 2006 fundraiser.
For the purposes of comparison I am defining the main phase as the time
between when a banner first appeared on enwiki till when it was replaced
with a "thank you" end-of-drive banner. The total does not include the
additional income during the "thank you" phase.
For current totals, see: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/node/22
-Robert Rohde
Absent Erik's irregular "State of the Wiki" reports on Wikinews we have a
number of developments that are going to need input from the wider WMF
community, potentially including Mike Godwin's input or that of board
members on formulation of policies. I will apologise in advance in case I
waffle or ramble.
The first issue I'd like to bring up is embargoed stories, we've had two
within the space of about a week. The first was the technology pioneers one,
the latest is the newest leak of the manual for Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay
(http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Standard_Operating_Procedure_changes_at_Camp_De
lta%2C_Guantanamo_Bay).
In both cases work was carried out in secret with static web pages updated,
invite-only IRC channels, and emails flying about. This isn't exactly what
we're meant to be doing, but if a source says they'll tell us something
provided we don't publish it before a specific time we have to either
respect their wishes or decline the offer. We lose credibility, stories, and
relevance if we decline these sort of chances.
My first thought on this was that a private wiki is required,
embargoed.wikinews.org or similar. Yet, the story up on Slashdot at the
moment, and accusations of a Cabal-esque secret mailing list would not be
mitigated by opening another private channel for communication and
cooperation. I cannot think of alternatives that would meet the needs of
these situations unfortunately.
Among the issues we need to deal are things like translation. Our Camp Delta
story is (when I last looked) up in 5 languages. The only mainstream media
also covering the story is the Washington Post, but more will follow as the
U.S. wakes up and the papers come out. We were first, but I believe we could
have had more language coverage and a more in-depth article had we had a
familiar (i.e. wiki) collaborative space. I am trying to chase up an Arabic
translator to get the story on ar.wikinews.org, and am in contact with
former Guantanamo chaplain James Yee who I hope to get to take a look at
their translation of the rules as well as answer some questions.
Moving on from that, and on to a related item; one that has probably been
asked by 1 in 5 of every new Wikinewsies that sticks around. "Why aren't we
listed on Google News?" The simple answer is we have no editorial control.
With an "anyone can edit" approach we fail some of the criteria Google
applies when approving or declining potential sources. We are forced to use
a poor man's workaround which is republishing stories on a blog which Google
have approved. So, for our Gitmo story the blog is listed
(http://www.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff
<http://www.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enBE176BE229&h
l=en&q=guantanamo+bay+camp+delta&ie=UTF-8>
&rlz=1B3GGGL_enBE176BE229&hl=en&q=guantanamo+bay+camp+delta&ie=UTF-8) but as
soon as other sources come up it will slip into obscurity. Actually having
the genuine Wikinews listed would not have us in that situation.
I have proposed one solution, and Angela has countered with another.
Angela's suggestion is the Foundation set up blog.wikinews.org and Wikinews
use that, but my reaction is whilst that address would be given a more
prominent Google listing it would still have all the technical issues
associated with updates, particularly when dealing with stories such as the
Virginia Tech shootings or London Bombings.
My proposal is the Wikinews adopt flagged revisions and create a policy to
select those who may flag revisions. Thus, those with the ability to flag
would become the editorial control team and collectively responsible for
editorial control. The Foundation remains independent of editorial control
(another thorn with Google).
Any input on this would be much appreciated. I have every reason to believe
that other languages, for example Polish, would also be interested in
FlaggedRevs. They are becoming increasingly active and if you check their
version of the Camp Delta story they've really gone to town filling it out.
They've also established good media contacts and I strongly suspect their
story, and their translation of the detainee rules will appear in tomorrow's
Polish newspapers.
Brian McNeil
> Earlier: "...
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:59:47 +0200
> From: "Yoni Weiden" <yonidebest(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons
> ... *break* ..."
Peter Blaise responds:
Agreed. Let's take a break from this particular challenge.
> "... Opened here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Inappropriat
e_cartoons ..."
Results: 18 votes (100%) to keep, not delete, the image files objected
to as of Friday, December 07, 2007, 8-21-03 am EST (GMT-5). I salute an
open-minded, all-inclusive community, fostering patience, tolerance,
acceptance, and equivalent consideration, free and open to all, with no
censorship.
> Earlier: "... The important question[s]
> then, [are,] are we displaying images that
> people find offensive in spite of the fact
> that the get offended, or are we
> displaying them because of the fact
> they get offended? If it is the latter, we
> have a moral obligation to take them
> down, and question our own ethics. If
> it is the former, we have a duty to
> remain uncensored ... I fear that these
> cartoons in question (the ones of
> Sharon) fit squarely into the latter ..."
Peter Blaise responds: I disagree. Two points.
1 - Ignore the perceived content of the images, then make your decision
to keep them or not.
2 - After we make the decision to keep them regardless of perceived
content, I disagree about the perceived content.
More to the third point raised above: I find none of them provocative
for the sake of being provocative ... though, there is nothing wrong and
censorable or censurable about being provocative for the sake of being
provocative. Just as there is nothing actionable about being funny for
the sake of being funny, or being ironic for the sake of being ironic,
or being ... you get my point, I hope.
"But, he is being offensive, the images themselves are offensive!"
BS
Offence is in the eye of the beholder. If Joe Muslim does not what to
sin by making a graven image of Mohamed, then let Joe Muslim not sin by
not making a graven image of Mohamed. What does that have to do with me
making one, or enjoying someone else's?
Many of Latuff's images strike me as ridiculing people who themselves
strike me as ridiculous by their own behavior and words. That's just my
take. I've seen the pictures, and I can't imagine how anyone subsequent
to me would be damaged if I seem to be able to see them without being
damaged myself. Censorship is such hypocrisy: "I can see these but you
can't"?!? See web places like
http://www.anis-online.de/1/rooms/latuff/likud.htm
for well exercised dialog on this particular topic. For the general
topic, see web resources such as a Google [censorship pictures] search.
737,000 results.
But here, what do we say? How about:
"Dear Joe Muslim (and Larry Hebrew/Jew, Heather Christian, Ben Hindu,
and so on ...),
Thank you for asking me to join your personal choices, but I
decline. I do not accept the choices you've made for yourself as
choices I make for myself, and I accept no authority but the authority
we the people continually build together for the unity, justice,
tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty for ourselves and our
posterity."
Yada yada, so on and so forth. The end. Case closed.
... until someone else comes along and wants to quash each other's
contributions to the community.
Instead of:
"Caution, some people might find images in this collection offensive!"
... let's try:
"Caution, we have found that some people seem to be immature and unable
to manage themselves when they feel surprised, provoked, or offended.
If you are one of those, then enjoy your own personal rage in response
to some of the pictures inside, but please do not ask us over and over
to take the images down - such requests to remove legitimate
contributions that fulfill the purpose of commons will get the same "NO"
response as previous requests. Thank you for visiting, and try to enjoy
your day and yourself anyway. We are."
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1608
l.jpg
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lawrence Lessig <larry(a)creativecommons.org>
Date: Dec 6, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: [cc-licenses] Wikipedia and Creative Commons next steps
To: cc-licenses(a)lists.ibiblio.org
Last week the Wikimedia Foundation board took an important step[1]
toward giving Wikipedia the right to choose to migrate to a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. Credit goes to the Wikimedia
Foundation and Free Software Foundation for having the wisdom and
foresight to enable this progress.
However, the real work has just begun. As Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales put it[2]:
Now, community, we have a lot to talk about. :)
For Creative Commons, this means continuing[3] a discussion concerning
how the CC Attribution-ShareAlike license can be improved so as to not
only be the best available license for a massively collaborative
content project, but the best such license feasible.
To start with, Wikimedia board member Erik Moeller has posted[4] a
list of issues that we want to address -- with input from across the
CC community.
One of these issues holds particular interest: Should the ShareAlike
requirement be more precisely defined for "embedded" media, and if so,
how? For example, if an image licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike is
used to illustrate an article, must the article be similarly licensed?
This has previously been discussed[5] on the cc-licenses list, and we
welcome the opportunity to drive that discussion to a happy
conclusion.
Tentatively the eventual outcome of these discussions will be a new
version of the CC licenses. We'll say version 3.5 for now -- a
significant improvement, but still within the framework of version
3.0[6] and folding in the work done so far on proposed version
3.01[7], thanks again to the Wikipedia community.
The primary venue for this discussion focused on improving CC licenses
is the cc-licenses list[8]. We encourage you to subscribe and
participate. Of course related discussion will and should continue on
Wikimedia and other lists.
Thanks again to the WMF and FSF, and thanks in advance to you, the
community, for the work that is ongoing and about to begin!
Lawrence Lessig
CEO
Creative Commons
[1] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/035554.html
[3] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7718
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/035677.html
[5] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/thread.html#51…
[6] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3
[7] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_301
[8] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses(a)lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> Earlier: "... I think it would be a bad idea
> to close such a controversial issue prematurely ..."
Peter Blaise responds: I'm lost to find a definition of the word
'controversy' that would be informative on the appropriateness of any
time frame for any actions or decision making process, see Google
[define:controversy] for a start. It's a throw away word that means
nothing as far as I can tell. I believe any situation can be accurately
defined and acted on without clouding it up with "... has it reached
'controversy' level yet? ... then we must take decelerated action!" ...
which means what?
Q: "Would you please delete pictures I don't like?"
A: "No."
What controversy? Because the asker asked twice? Or with emphasis? Or
using hot words and threats that make some of us feel circumspect?
Q: "Would you please delete controversial pictures I don't like, or bad
things will happen?"
A: "Still no. They're only controversial because you don't like them,
by definition of the word "controversy"!"
==
However, if someone has some criteria to propose on the when or the
conditions under which any "issue" can and should be closed, please dive
in. How about something measurable, like, "Take the next step after 10
days." Or, "... after 10 votes."
As of Thursday, December 6, 2007 14:06:32 pm EST, at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Inappropriat
e_cartoons
there are 15 votes to keep the challenged images, 100% agreement.
In other words, we all agree: we want no racism censoring commons.
'nuf said?