Wikimedia-l June 2007

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

113 participants
89 discussions

[Foundation-l] Fwd: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
by GerardM 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Hoi, I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most excellent bit of news. The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics. What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should approve yet another language :) NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus... Thanks, GerardM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org> Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875. Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org> Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org> Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project <reviews(a)linguistlist.org> Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/ The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, and donations from subscribers and publishers. Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org> ================================================================ To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html ===========================Directory============================== 1) Date: 18-Jun-2007 From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org > Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers -------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35 From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org > Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers Dear subscribers, As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the "Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this at: http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm. The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity of our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit more leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on the Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely organizational one. We will: *Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or pages that need improvement; *Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified as "in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any references or sources," etc; *Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or articles; *Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia; *Keep track of our project Wikipedians; *Keep track of revisions and new entries; *Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's efforts. We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us all get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an area needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of Linguists page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and information added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort, please respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which linguistics entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our campaign on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we will share with you soon. This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The end result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth and depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate prospective students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on what we do. Please consider participating. Sincerely, Hannah Morales Editor, Wikipedia Update Project Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable ----------------------------------------------------------- LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831

3 2

[Foundation-l] Querylogs and accesslogs
by Antonio Gulli 12 May '08

12 May '08

Hi, are this information accessible for an academic research paper? Thank you

4 5

Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome Sue !
by Sue Gardner 21 Dec '07

21 Dec '07

Hi folks, As week one draws to a close, I just wanted to say thanks for all the very kind welcomes I've gotten from you all, both here & off this list. Many people have jumped in to help me get acclimated, which I really appreciate (as you all know, there's a truly dizzying amount of stuff to soak up :-) So please consider this a collective thanks to everyone I haven't gotten back to individually. And - I want to offer my apologies in advance to anyone or any issue I'm going to overlook in this first little while. A) I'm still getting my head around many of the internal systems (e.g., the wikis, mailing lists, etc.), and B) I'm wanting to focus on making first connections with a few people, particularly the office staff. Those are my modest goals for this past week and next; then, I've got a prior commitment that will take me completely offline from July 7-25. That means my work won't really begin until post-Wikimania. I think you probably all have an idea of what I'm here to do. But to recap - I'm a big fan of the projects, and I'm delighted to be able to come and work with you all. And I am hoping and expecting I can help. In general: it's clear to me, and also to the Board, that the Foundation is at a pretty significant transition point. The bad news is, it's got some problems (lack of administrative policies, some communications issues, some skills gaps, etc.). The good news is, the problems are unsurprising, and for the most part typical of young organizations, and completely fixable. Upshot: I've seen -and grappled with- this kind of thing elsewhere, and I have a pretty good general grasp of the kinds of things that need to happen in order for the Foundation to get through this phase, and come out the other side stronger and better. (The other good news, by the way, is that the projects are -obviously- remarkably, phenomenally successful. So the core work of the organization is in good shape.) Of course there's an added wrinkle here, which is that Wikimedia is truly culturally unique; it is not a 'typical' organization. Trust me - I recognize that, and I'll respect it :-) So again - I just wanted to thank you all for your early support. If anyone needs to reach me over the next week or so, I'd suggest using susanpgardner[at]gmail.com - I'm a Blackberry person, and that's the account that travels with me. Thanks, Sue On 30/06/07, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org < foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Sue (todos) (Florence Devouard) > 2. Re: Sue (todos) (Aphaia) > 3. Cloaks backlog (Sean Whitton) > 4. Re: Welcome Sue ! (THD) > 5. Re: Meta-l (Azdiyy) > 6. Re: Meta-l (GerardM) > 7. Re: Meta-l (Azdiyy) > 8. Re: Meta-l (GerardM) > 9. Re: Meta-l (Michael Bimmler) > 10. Re: Meta-l (Azdiyy) > 11. just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized? > (oscar van dillen) > 12. Re: just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized? > (Aphaia) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:47:46 +0200 > From: Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Sue (todos) > To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Message-ID: <4684FF72.5090503(a)anthere.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Erik Moeller wrote: > > On 6/28/07, Stephen Bain > <stephen.bain-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Secondly, and this is directed more at the Board, I understand that > >> Sue has been hired as a "consultant and special advisor" and not as > >> Executive Director at least partly because of immigration-related > >> restrictions on the work she is presently entitled to perform in the > >> United States. Will the Board be providing the community with a > >> description of the position "consultant and special advisor"? Are > >> there any substantive differences between this position and that of > >> Executive Director? > > > > I see no particular reason not to post Sue's job description, but I'll > > ask the Chair to confirm that. > > > > The differences between a Board-level consultant and a freshly minted > > ED aren't that great, as the Board needs to build a trust relationship > > with this new staff member in either case. Beyond 3-6 months in the > > future, should the professional relationship develop as expected, this > > status will become too limiting, and I hope the remaining constraints > > can be removed within that timeframe. > > > Hello > > I am sorry, but I was not able to find an internet connection in the > past 36 hours, and will probably be off for the week end. That was my > last move of june (*relief*). > > So, yeah, things to be done > > * publish Sue job description on Foundation wiki (not done yet) > * remove the reference for ED position being searched (apparently done) > on foundation > * create her asap a sgardner at wikimedia.org > * add Sue to foundation-l, internal-l and internal wiki, office wiki, > wmfcc-l, juriwiki-l, private-l, wikimania-l, wikimania-planning-l, > fundcom-l. > * add her on staff page on foundation wiki > * add her biography on foundation wiki > * add the press release on foundation wiki > * add announcement on foundation wiki (news) with links to pages "press > release" and biography > * then breath and wait till monday :-) > > Ant > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:57:10 +0900 > From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sue (todos) > To: anthere(a)wikimedia.org, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <35be2a710706290557u63129c5ar78d59f02c4966e49(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 6/29/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote: > > So, yeah, things to be done > > > > * publish Sue job description on Foundation wiki (not done yet) > > * remove the reference for ED position being searched (apparently done) > > on foundation > Done > > * create her asap a sgardner at wikimedia.org > Done and sent > > * add Sue to foundation-l, internal-l and internal wiki, office wiki, > > wmfcc-l, juriwiki-l, private-l, wikimania-l, wikimania-planning-l, > > fundcom-l. > > * add her on staff page on foundation wiki > > * add her biography on foundation wiki > > * add the press release on foundation wiki > > * add announcement on foundation wiki (news) with links to pages "press > > release" and biography > > * then breath and wait till monday :-) > > * cough * vote, * cough* vote > > -- > KIZU Naoko > Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org > * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo * > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:02:53 +0100 > From: "Sean Whitton" <sean(a)silentflame.com> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Cloaks backlog > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <c13e6b500706290602r5f5cb3deke33e08e1ce1610a3(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed > > Just a quick note to let you all know that your cloak requests have > not been forgotten. > > There is a problem with the toolserver that means I can't access the > list of submissions and also that new ones are not being accepted. > They are however, I believe, all in there and so it is just a matter > of getting at them when the toolserver admins fix things. > > Please spread this knowledge if people ask, and thank you for your > patience. > > -- > Regards, > ?Sean Whitton (seanw) > http://seanwhitton.com/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:39:38 +0800 > From: THD <theodoranian(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome Sue ! > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <63075c310706290639u4c07a52dr9ec7356fe61cef0f(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Welcome aboard, Sue. > > > :) > > Theodoranian > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:03 +0100 > From: Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <6af34c650706290724y45753752n85f736081fc5c67e(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > can issues relating to multiple projects, chapters, board, > and governance be discusses in the meta list > azdiyy > > On 28/06/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/28/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > > What is meant by MetaWiki ? > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org > > > > -- > > Stephen Bain > > stephen.bain(a)gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:29:33 +0200 > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <41a006820706290729t3218e605u4ecf12bf130c8181(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hoi, > That is exactly what the foundation-l is for I would say. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 6/29/07, Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > can issues relating to multiple projects, chapters, board, > > and governance be discusses in the meta list? > > > > azdiyy > > > > On 28/06/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/28/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hoi, > > > > What is meant by MetaWiki ? > > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org > > > > > > -- > > > Stephen Bain > > > stephen.bain(a)gmail.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:48:47 +0100 > From: Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <6af34c650706290748n4726a975h5fc142e00fe1dfeb(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > i will start with the warning-less indef ban by one of meta > [[en:Category:Rouge admins]] who blocked my ip with no warning and > protected my talkpage. > time for [[m:association of rouge stewards]]? > > thanks, > azdiyy > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:51:51 +0200 > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <41a006820706290751r4bd38203m86e5b5795b27dd86(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hoi, > It is a great start that will ensure that nobody will subscribe to this > list. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 6/29/07, Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > i will start with the warning-less indef ban by one of meta > > [[en:Category:Rouge admins]] who blocked my ip with no warning and > > protected my talkpage. > > time for [[m:association of rouge stewards]]? > > > > thanks, > > azdiyy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:39:13 +0200 > From: "Michael Bimmler" <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <353e9f360706290839u12db29d4qc6b1f4c397be187(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > You've lost me here... First you talk of "chapters, board and > governance" and then of your meta block. Sure you recognise that these > two things are not really the same? > Michael > > On 6/29/07, Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > i will start with the warning-less indef ban by one of meta > > [[en:Category:Rouge admins]] who blocked my ip with no warning and > > protected my talkpage. > > time for [[m:association of rouge stewards]]? > > > > thanks, > > azdiyy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:52:14 +0100 > From: Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <6af34c650706290852i23b5110bwbd7daa9f80edb7ac(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/030517.html > http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10098 > > what do you suggest if admins on irc do not want to get involved, > foundation list is no the place, and friends of teh blocking admin > dont want to upset him? > an azdiyy list that no one reads? bug=? > > azdiyy > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:18:28 +0200 > From: "oscar van dillen" <oscarvandillen(a)wikimedia.org> > Subject: [Foundation-l] just an idea: add motivation commentary line, > anonymized? > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <d3f9d3df0706300118u5df749d7n7147506986d736a(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > just a thought that spontaneously came to me this morning which i would > like > to share: > (i know logs are not to be published but i am just quoting myself from > #wikimedia) > > [09:50]<oscar>please allow me to prompt an open question: would it not be > interesting to read the answers to an imaginary questionnaire about the > final motivation of the voters (answers as to the "why" they voted > such-and-so) [[Elections 2007/Questions to voters]] if it existed?[09:51]< > oscar>like a commentary line as we have in edits, but anonymized[09:52]< > oscar>alphabetically ordered in one big dump :-) > (...) > [09:59]<oscar>it was just a thought, like last year i suggested a debate > [09:59]<oscar>which now did take place more or less[10:00]<oscar>who knows > what happens next year?[10:02]<oscar>there could be several reasons for > doing this however, hints for the wmf or the board, for online elections > in > general and perhaps reading each other's comments is useful as > well?[10:03]< > oscar>afterwards of course[10:03]<oscar>not *during* an election > (end of quote) > > curious about your opinions! > > best regards, > oscar > > -- > *edito ergo sum* > > DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the > Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:31:39 +0900 > From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] just an idea: add motivation commentary > line, anonymized? > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <35be2a710706300131l2bb6e583xe6be7256b2c1afcf(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I had a similar - but opponent in its appearance inquiry last year. > "Why did you not vote". It helps me to organize this year Election. At > least PR for this community I asked their opinion. > > But I'd love to consider such after the election. Now seeing > non-English communities hesitation for involvement (in Day 1, among > 1100 votes, over 500 have come from enwiki alone, and there are only > two other community over 100 votes were casted). > > Thanks, > > On 6/30/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > just a thought that spontaneously came to me this morning which i would > like > > to share: > > (i know logs are not to be published but i am just quoting myself from > > #wikimedia) > > > > [09:50]<oscar>please allow me to prompt an open question: would it not > be > > interesting to read the answers to an imaginary questionnaire about the > > final motivation of the voters (answers as to the "why" they voted > > such-and-so) [[Elections 2007/Questions to voters]] if it > existed?[09:51]< > > oscar>like a commentary line as we have in edits, but anonymized[09:52]< > > oscar>alphabetically ordered in one big dump :-) > > (...) > > [09:59]<oscar>it was just a thought, like last year i suggested a debate > > [09:59]<oscar>which now did take place more or less[10:00]<oscar>who > knows > > what happens next year?[10:02]<oscar>there could be several reasons for > > doing this however, hints for the wmf or the board, for online elections > in > > general and perhaps reading each other's comments is useful as > well?[10:03]< > > oscar>afterwards of course[10:03]<oscar>not *during* an election > > (end of quote) > > > > curious about your opinions! > > > > best regards, > > oscar > > > > -- > > *edito ergo sum* > > > > DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the > > Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees. > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > -- > KIZU Naoko > Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org > * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo * > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 39, Issue 67 > ******************************************** >

12 12

[Foundation-l] Moldavian
by Andre Engels 10 Nov '07

10 Nov '07

On the Moldavian Wikipedia it says for over a month "This wiki has been closed for now." Is there any outlook on whether 'for now' means 'for ever' or that it will be re-opened at some time? I am asking because I want to know what to do with the interwiki for the bot. If the wiki is closed down for good, I intend to remove them silently; if it will be opened up again some time soon, I want to keep them in the same way as to 'normal' Wikipedias. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

15 48

[Foundation-l] Why is it...
by Delphine Ménard 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

... that every time community input is asked on a subject by a board member, little to none is given? And why is it that every time the same things that were put up for discussion are said "approved' or "official" suddenly everyone finds something to say? Shouldn't it be the other around? Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

15 18

[Foundation-l] WMF-projects: Carbon neutral/low/aware website?
by Walter Vermeir 23 Jul '07

23 Jul '07

Hi all, I noticed a logo for "Carbon Neutral website" on a wiki; http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Carbon-Neutral The concept is to be aware of the carbon production related to the operation of a website/organization and to try to keep the production as low as possible by using energy efficient computers and environmental awareness by people working for the organisation. And further compensate the produced greenhouse gasses by investing in projects to reduce emissions. Why doing this: There is a climate problem on earth caused by the human activity's like the release of greenhouse gasses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there. Because a picture says more then thousend words maybe this short picture can made clear what this is about; http://sol3.info/2007/05/no-need-for-words.html Back to carbon neutral website; The impact of doing things like this can not be anything else for the environment then symbolic. But I do not think that is an valid excuse for not (trying) to do it. Symbolic actions have also there value. If some small website does something like this then that is nice but that is all (*). But if a Top 10 Internet website does it then that is an important symbolic signal. And if it would come form a American organization it would be matter even more. Like it or not America has the image in large parts of the world as the largest polluter in world who does not want do anything serious about it. I would like to raise this topic to the global Wikimedia community and if there is support for (maybe a vote?) the Wikimedia Foundation to take this topic in to account. And explore if, how and when it could be possible to reduce the environmental footprint of the Wikimedia Foundation projects and maybe get to the point to be become a carbon neutral website. The vision statement of the WMF is; "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." In a future with increased global temperature of more then 2 degrees Celsius the change of that vision getting reality is strongly reduced. I think it would fit the mission of the WMF to try to at least try to become a carbon neutral website/organisation. And it would also not hurt from a public relations point of view. Some people could be concerned about the NPOV attitude of Wikipedia. This is not about advertisements, this is about the future. To stay hard core neutral by doing nothing is saying NOP (Not Our Problem). That is also a POV, a irresponsible one. Thoughts? Greetings, Walter (*) A cleaner environment starts with yourself. Being small is no excuse for not doing anything yourself. I operate the websites wikizine.org and sol3.info . These are Carbon neutral websites because of investments in green power installations by myself. -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

22 51

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions
by Jeff V. Merkey 17 Jul '07

17 Jul '07

Casey Brown wrote: >What kind of situations does Meta have that would call for "office >actions" as they were practiced on the English Wikipedia? > >With respect to the larger issue, the Wikimedia Foundation office must >have the authority to intervene on all projects when necessary for legal >reasons. It would be difficult to abdicate this. The details and process >might vary (the closure of the French Wikiquote was done rather >differently), and I wouldn't recommend referring everyone to the English >Wikipedia version as the blanket official policy, but the principle >remains the same. > >--Michael Snow > > > > Yep. Jeff

23 53

[Foundation-l] One side of the #wikipedia story explained
by Michael Bimmler 08 Jul '07

08 Jul '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Zoran Obradovic <zoran.obradovic(a)siol.net> Date: Jun 20, 2007 8:33 PM Subject: One side of the #wikipedia story explained To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org I've posted this to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia#The_long_answer , but since this I think that it's important that the foundation people see it, and it's already discussed here, I'm crossposting it here. == The long answer == For the last few days, many people have been shouting at each other about #wikipedia. It turns out we've all been mostly shouting past each other. Our ideas and opinions on the matter are different, more than that, we see two different realities. So, I set out to write a meaningful explanation of at least one side of the story, or one of the two realities, all in the interest of reducing the need to read and misunderstand future misguided comments by people who misunderstood your last comment. Unfortunately, it turns out there was a lot to say, so the explanation is rather long. I hope you can bare with me till the end. (There may or may not be a test later.) ===The channel=== The initial creation of #wikipedia back in the mists of time is beyond the memory of all but the best of us. However, it's safe to say that it is the mother of all Wikimedia channels, and as such has served us in many ways over the years. These have included: * Discussion of "the PHP script" and its descendents. This was moved to #mediawiki in early 2004. * Discussion of the server farm status. Moved to #mediawiki and then to #wikimedia-tech in 2005. * Inter-project coordination and foundation business. Moved to #wikimedia in 2004. * Editor coordination on en. Moved to #wikipedia-en in 2005. * Admin coordination on en. Moved to invite-only #wikipedia-en-admins in 2006, causing conflicts on en for a time. * Editor and admin coordination on Wikipaedie in other languages. Moved out gradually to other channels over the years. * Editor and admin coordination on other Wikimedia projects. Ditto. * Detailed discussion of gender issues and personal lives of the LGBT community. Moved to other channels around 2004/2005. * Coordination of anti-vandal activities, violations of WP:BEANS, newby biting and general incitiment to siege mentality. Moved gradually to other channels over the years. * Process-wonk bashing, RFA pile-ons, slander against editors, coordination of on-wiki attacks and causing all sorts of trouble on en. Shouted down and moved to other channels during 2005. * Trollbashing, warfare against critics and "enemies", coordination of counter-trolling on "enemy sites". Shouted down and moved to other channels during 2006. * Juggling channel modes, micromanagement of the ban list, kickbanning people for a laugh, flaunting op powers. Actively discouraged, but recurrent in occasional waves, related to new crops of ops. * Sulking, assuming worst about human nature, righteousness and general misanthropy. Somewhat reduced in 2006, but still persistent. * Trolling and crapflood attacks. Killed with fire at least since 2005. * Running jokes about autofellatio and furries. Died out on their own as jokes grew old over the years. * Discussion of theoretical and practical approaches to the English Wikipedia, other Wikipeadiae and encyclopedias in general. * Discussion and analysis of articles in en and other Wikipediae, as well as other Wikimedia projects. * Learning and teaching of encyclopedic and people skills by new users, new admins and old hands. * Helping new users, new admins, as well as old hands, find their way down the ever changing corridors of Wikipediae and other projects. * Handling requests for admin action on en and other projects. * Being the lobby to wikipedia for people who are technically savvy enough to use IRC. Not that IRC beginners aren't given help when they show up. In addition to all the on-topic talk, #wikipedia communicates in several off-topic registers: * Discussion of encyclopedic subjects, which tends to take a relaxed, but largely academic tone. * Socializing and friendly banter. * Monologues at quiet hours, which sometimes go ignored, sometimes spark of a new round of discussion, and sometimes just make somebody smile. * Humour, which is often grotesque, dark, over-the-top. I'll come back to this later. It is my informed belief that off-topic discussions play a crucual part in attracting the right kind of people to the channel and ensuring antendance, which enables the channel to perform its on-topic functions. They're often the most flamboyant, most memorable, and certainly longest, but to get some perspective, according to the [http://stats.fennecfoxen.org/freenode/wikipedia.html channel statistics], the most common real word in the channel is "article", not "penis". ===The people=== People in #wikipedia come from many countries, all age groups, all kinds of backgrounds, and have widely differing world views and opinions on everything. What brings them together is the fact that they're editors of one or more Wikipediae or other Wikimedia project, and that they enjoy the immediate medium that IRC provides. As a fortunate consequence, they tend to have a common interest in a wide range of encyclopedic subjects, which facilitates enjoyable discussions and bonding. The channel has exposed many Wikipedians to a widely differing POVs on a great number of issues, which has maed them better encyclopedia editors and admins. These fun sides of the channel, combined with the common purpose of improving Wikipediae, and with the collaboration on chores that the channel is responsible for, are what makes the channel interesting enough to keep people coming for months, in many cases for years. These are the "regulars". They're the ones who carried out the chores. They're the ones kept the channel running 24 hours a day and made sure that questions don't go unanswered. They're the ones who killed crapflooders with fire while making sure that the channel could still be used by normal people. They're the ones who shouted down the schemers and the backslappers. They're the ones who told the young admins to think twice before ganging up on the editor that irks them, in many cases because they learned it the hard way in the channel. And crucially, they're the ones who have seen every trolling trick in the book, every type of confused newbie, and every way that a misunderstanding can be turned into a conflict. But all is not that rosy, of course. The splintering of channels has hurt the mother-of-them-all badly. The gains that we made by getting rid of the people that caused on-wiki onflicts were to a large extent offset by the brain drain to other channels. Over time, the powers that be first came more rarely and than completely stopped coming to the channel. Some regulars followed them either because they needed to work with them, or they liked to associate with them. Others naturally drifted to more specific channels which suited them better, or were driven away by the atmosphere. Regulars who had no such ambitions or interests remained and continued to run and improve the channel and the atmosphere. This brought us to the current situation, or rather the situation before the "reform". The people who know and care about #wikipedia are no longer the same people who hang out with the powers that be. Thus we became completely divorced groups - the regulars became the left-behinds, and the former regulars became their own grandparents who visited Spain in 1969 and think it's still a fascist dictatorship in 2007. ===The reform=== :''Disclaimer: The following sections includes many references to "reformers" and "regulars". The names may not be precise nor 100% serious, and the membership of both groups is fuzzy and non-exclusive, but I trust everybody will know what is meant. In any case, we're discussing two concepts of how the channel should be run. Actual personalities are secondary.'' It's useless to talk about the "reform" as a single issue. On the whole, the regulars obviously think it's a bad thing, and the perpertarors obviously think they're doing something good. So I'll try to separate it into issues and see if we can come to an agreement on at least some of them. ;The channel structure The newly proposed channel structure isn't ''illogical'' or ''wrong''. It makes sense, philosophically speaking. Yet, there are several important drawbacks which seem to have been overlooked: #Success of any channel scheme depends largely on incoming links, in our case those posted on Wikipediae and related sites. Even if we changed them all (btw, has anybody investigated how many there are, where they are, etc.?), it's still a fact of life that, unlike on other Wikipediae, readers of en are often oblivious to the existence of other language editions. Those who are IRC-adept will still simply type /join #wikipedia and ask questions about en. And of course, there are countless links to #wikipedia around the net which are beyond our control. It is questionable whether the final results will be worth the effort. # It is questionable whether a symmetrical channel scheme is really beneficial to a largely assimetrical project. # It is highly questionable whether further splintering of the channels is beneficial. See above. # #wikipedia has been used this way for years, and without strong indications that it is harmful, it's simply reckless to change it for the sake of symmetry. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In any case, this is something that could have been discussed reasonably and calmly in advance. Changing the channel scheme succesfully is quite a tedious operation and certainly isn't urgent. ;The guideline Especially after the recent edits, the guideline isn't a bad start for a reasonable discussion, content wise. In details and especially in tone, it's harmful. On one hand, it's full of weaseling like the contradictory (mystical?) description of the channel owners, and the hilarious talk about "catalysts". It's in urgent need of some straigh talking. On the other hand, it's primarily concerned with discipline, which shows that it's not based on traditional Wikimedian values, like openness, participation, consensus and above all, assumption of good faith. Instead, the reformers decided that the channel needs discipline in the form of kicks, bans, devoicing. This for the channel that kept its topic unprotected until it became wholly impracticable. Oh, and please, everybody, stay on topic. Some subjects, like television shows, movies, music or other popular culture, even clearly encyclopedic subjects like politics, government and religion are explicitly declared off-topic and nudged towards a dead-end channel. Things like non-wikimedia related open-source software and computer games aren't, and in the past few days, the reformers have indeed discussed such subjects freely and at length in the channel. Could it be that pet subjects are tedious only when they're other people's pet subjects? And of course, no humour please. At least not your kind of humour. Think of the children! But I'll come back to that later. ;The powerplay Now, the really tedious part: It all started one day, when the curious decision was made that all it takes to achieve consensus is have a proposal ignored for 5 days. Actually, as was made apparent later, it all started at an undefined time before that, with a conversation between uncertain participants who were concerned about the channels for unclear reasons. I can't tell you what and how happened (not for lack of trying to find out), and I wouldn't mind at least a short non-contradictory resume of that, if nobody can be bothered to provide actual details. In any case, the new owners enacted the new mission statement, authorization codes wer exchanged, all the employees were fired (and offered their jobs back provided that they pledge alleigance), and some of the patrons were booted. This understandibly met with protests and enquiries, which for some reason were repeatedly met by FUD. The questions were: Who was it that decided this? Who gave them the authrotity to decide this? Is it Freenode or Wikimedia? Is it up to a single person? Is that person the guy that says he was authorized, the one that says it wasn't him, or the one who's on vacation and doesn't say anything? Can the foundation do anything? It all boils down to "who had the authority to do this and who has the authority to undo it"? We got a whole caleidoscope of tidbits and hints, but no straight answers. We were told to "go to the meta page". When the meta page was edited, it got protected, and reformers said "go to the meta talk page". When the meta talk page was filled with concerns and objections, they were brushed off or ignored, and the reformers said "go to foundation-l". (As an aside, this was not brought up on the Communication Committe's mailing list, though it clearly concerns internal communications.) As if the clearence of the op list weren't socially inadept enough, the reformers' choice of co-captains raised more eyebrows. What was the criterion? Obviously not experience and attendance. Very few of the new ops are in the top 55 participants on the channel, according to the channel statistics, and most of the people who op themselves in #wikipedia last few days are certainly not long-time veterans. Some are former regulars, some seem to be freenode staffers, some are virtually unknown on the channel. That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or bad ops, or that they shouldn't be ops. But they are clearly not in the channel all the time. They obviously have other things to do and they're not familiar with the terrain. It also wasn't the willingness to follow the new guideline, at least not the non-fun parts of it. Channel modes were juggled alright, people were quieted, but the discussion continued much as before. Only it was different people and a narrower choice of pet subjects. So, it appears that the criterion was knowing the right people or being in the right position. It's downright funny that Raul was made an op in this scheme of things. He's known for occasionally crashing the channel with a flurry of gross jokes and other scary off-topic talk (bless him), and then disappearing. Could it be because he supports or cares for the new guidelines? Or is it just because he's Raul? (Don't get me wrong, I want Raul as an op in #wikipedia. He's not a bad op at all.) As well-intentioned and well-mannered as most of them are, they simply can't do the job effectively. We had a crapflood attack lasting half an hour. Channel remained accessible only to registered freenode users for who knows how long. A very friendly lobby indeed. Other new ops seemed more confrontational and curiously better informed than the regulars about what was going on. We were told "bluntly" that the idea is to get rid of the people in order to change the atomsphere, we were called "so-called regulars", and told that the ex-regulars who have since left the channel were the "real oldbies". In reality, the people who oppose the guideline have been in the channel for years, some for 3 or 4. In all that time they were also productive editors of Wikipedia the encyclopedia, some for 4 or 5 years. As could be expected, such a turn of events led to a kind of a turf war, and we all started shouting past each other, which is where we're now. ==Possible causes== So, finally, back to the dark, surreal, vile humour of #wikipedia. Which seems to be the only point where both sides of the story meet at the same point. On one hand there is the perception that wikipedia is nothing but penis talk. There are people who drop into #wikipedia occasionally and walk straight into a bout of gross-out bantering. There are those that haven't been in the channel for years and are like the aforementioned grandaparent tourists, with snapshots of the most memorable moments and hardly any more knowledge of the channel. A similar phenomenon can be observed with AFD and DRV, for instance. On the other hand, it's not like the regulars don't know this or don't act on it. Even without this attempt at reform, the realization has been growing in the channel that being the lobby of Wikipedia and Wikimedia requires a somewhat cleaner image, simply to avoid shocking the random passers-by. In fact, the humour and gross-out bantering has been greatly reduced over the years, and certainly regulars are prepared to take it further. The only other relevant issue that I have seen brought up is the supposed op abuse, but that was never backed with any but most vague references to anecdotal evidence, at least to my knowledge. While I don't always agree with op decisions in the channel (I myself never desired to be an op), the idea that op abuse is ripe in #wikipedia is simply wrong. So, it seems to me that this was all based on a partly faulty perception of one of the many components of #wikipedia, and on the desire for a direction on which we all agree anyway. It boggles the mind that the "reformers" thought that they need to adopt such a confrontational stance and go behind the backs of the "regulars". An explanation of that would also be helpful. ==What now?== Mid-term solutions will require considerations such as who gets to appoint Wikimedia's contact with FreeNode, does the foundation have any influence on the appointment of both its own and freenode's contact persons, should such contact persons between real-life organizations be adults, and even should Wikimedia look for another network to avoid such situations in the future. But that's mid-term. In the meantime, we can get the channel back to normal pretty easily. Just reinstate the old ops and unprotect the guideline page so that it can be edited into something more sensible in tone and detail. The "regulars" agree with the general direction of the guideline and will be happy to improve it. I don't expect any opposition to cleaning up the act further. As long as it does not mean banning all discussion of certain "unclean" subjects, like sex, death, or politics, of course. But that won't save the channel by itself. We're still dependent on incoming links, and we're still being hurt by the braindrain. We all found the conversations more interesting when they included nicks like jwales, anthere, eloquence, raul654, submarine, disprosia, etc etc etc. And since you last saw us, we aged for a few years, some reached middle age, others grew up. So, if you're an ex-regular and are concerned for the welfare of #wikipedia, your help will be greatly appreciated. You don't need to be a "catalyst" or any other buzzword. Just [irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia don't be a stranger]. ~~~~

4 3

[Foundation-l] Meta-l
by Brianna Laugher 04 Jul '07

04 Jul '07

Hi, I see there is now a "meta-l" list: http://mail.lists.wikipedia.be/mailman/listinfo/meta-l_lists.wikipedia.be Could it be transferred to the standard lists.wikimedia.org ? IMO it makes more sense to have all the Wikimedia lists at one place. Perhaps it is worth having a discussion about what the role of such a list is, too? (when should one post to meta-l, and when should one post to foundation-l?) cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

10 15

[Foundation-l] just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized?
by oscar van dillen 02 Jul '07

02 Jul '07

just a thought that spontaneously came to me this morning which i would like to share: (i know logs are not to be published but i am just quoting myself from #wikimedia) [09:50]<oscar>please allow me to prompt an open question: would it not be interesting to read the answers to an imaginary questionnaire about the final motivation of the voters (answers as to the "why" they voted such-and-so) [[Elections 2007/Questions to voters]] if it existed?[09:51]< oscar>like a commentary line as we have in edits, but anonymized[09:52]< oscar>alphabetically ordered in one big dump :-) (...) [09:59]<oscar>it was just a thought, like last year i suggested a debate [09:59]<oscar>which now did take place more or less[10:00]<oscar>who knows what happens next year?[10:02]<oscar>there could be several reasons for doing this however, hints for the wmf or the board, for online elections in general and perhaps reading each other's comments is useful as well?[10:03]< oscar>afterwards of course[10:03]<oscar>not *during* an election (end of quote) curious about your opinions! best regards, oscar -- *edito ergo sum* DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l June 2007