As announced at Wikimania, the Foundation plans to launch our 2007
fundraiser this fall. Currently we’re targeting September 23 to
November 22, although those dates may change.
Our goal is to paint a compelling and accessible picture of the work
we do, and why it’s important. In doing that, we hope to persuade new
people to support us – those who don’t know much about us, but would
be sympathetic if they did.
Here are some areas where we anticipate needing your help:
- We need people to help collect compelling human stories that show
why the projects matter. We know we’re making a major impact on real
people’s lives, and we want to collect together some of those stories,
and make sure they get told. If you can help with this, please contact
Cary Bass at cbass(a)wikimedia.org, or put your stories here
Please note though we’re not necessarily looking for stories about how
the projects have changed *your* life; we want stories that
demonstrate all kinds of impact –e.g., on schools, language groups,
countries, communities of interest, etc.–, not just impact on
- We will need translation help. That will happen through the
translation committee – http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translations.
- We will need lots of help designing and implementing the message.
That will happen through the WMF Communications Committee (AKA
- And we will need lots of people to help us plan and carry out the
plans as they're developed. If you can help us with that, please let
Please feel free to distribute this note to anyone who should see it.
Only sent to Wikinews-l, forwarding to foundation-l
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Brian McNeil
Sent: 22 August 2007 13:11
To: 'Wikinews mailing list'
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Proposal for the creation of a Wikinews foundation
I think we have a long way to go to firm up what we're actually doing here,
and what the organization should have as a remit. However, what may - to my
thinking - exclude non-wikinews journalists is NPOV. I believe that any
organization that is set up should adopt that as a core tenet.
I am not aware of the detailed technical differences between a union and a
non-profit, but to me it appears that a union's objective is to represent
its members' interests, a non-profit is to represent its goals. So, whilst
you could set up a non-profit with the goal of representing its members that
is putting the non-profit goals on shifting sands.
So, to consider the idea of including citizen journalists outside the
Wikinews community, I believe the association with WMF should require an
adherence to NPOV. This *will* exclude a lot of excellent reporters who
write good editorial and opinion pieces. Is there any way we can be
inclusive of these people if they clearly label online work as opinion or
editorial when it doesn't meet NPOV? A key issue for me would be getting
bloggers to work within the WN NPOV framework to produce an article then
doing their opinion/editorial introduction to the "neutral" story.
Going back to what we call this, I tried all the http://www.wju.org
(Wikinews Journalists' Union) acronyms I could think of at short notice.
Only free one was http://www.upj.org - Union of Pajama Journalists. :)
Wikinews-l mailing list
Please consider this an announcement that formal bidding has begun today
for Wikimania 2008 host city. Bids can be placed on
Also, the candidate city selection jury has been announced, the names
can be found here: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Jury>
Please share this information with any local mailing lists, and
translate where applicable.
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
This would be useful for a number of projects. It would be useful to have
this sort of list from smaller countries as well.
We could use a system for collaboratively building structured datasets
such as these around Wikimedia projects... perhaps the Open Library folks
can help in this regard. (would any of the semwiki projects scale to
querying millions of records?)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Hi Durova
> I have a list of 23,101 UK schools. I am not sure how good it is or how
> many are primary/secondary/colleges/unis but I do know that 17,000+ have
> email addresses. If this would be of interest let me know.
> Best regards
> Debbie Garside
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Durova
>> Sent: 05 August 2007 21:18
>> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: [Foundation-l] WikProject Classroom coordination
>> With fall semester coming up, now is a good time to let
>> educators know about one of our resources.
>> This project aims to help professors and teachers who
>> incorporate Wikipedia editing assignments into their
>> curricula. Instead of (or as an adjunct to) regular student
>> term papers, students would make cited improvements to
>> Wikipedia articles.
>> How does the Foundation usually get the word out about
>> something like this?
>> I think the *Chronicle of Higher Education* would be
>> interested in running a notice if they were informed about
>> the project. Should I get in touch with them, or are there
>> others who have contacts already?
>> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l mailing list
 is the addition of an abstract from the journal Nature . It was in
the encyclopedia for four months until I accidentally found it. I was told
in IRC that the procedure for this situation is to simply remove the change
from the current revision of the article, because it is technically
difficult to permanently remove things from the database. This seems
incredibly problematic to me. From a legal perspective, I don't see any
difference in viewing an old version of an article which contains a
copyright violation, and that copyright violation still being in the current
version. There is some effort to hide old revisions from search engines, but
the violation still exists on the Internet, and the copyright owner's rights
are still being violated.
Please note that I have no special interest in this text. I thought it was
common sense that blatant violations like this would be deleted from the
database, and so am very surprised at the lackadaisical attitude I have
encountered. This seems like a tremendous legal risk, and there must be some
technical solution for easily removing old revisions from the database,
especially in cases like this where the text remained essentially unchanged.
After I asked for more information about the procedure for deleting text
like this from the database, I was told to nominate the article for deletion
so that it could be rewritten without the copyright violation. The community
solution was to remove the text from the current revision and speedy keep
the article. This does nothing to protect the rights of the journal Nature,
and if the community is going to be left in charge of handling copyright
violations, they should be empowered with tools for permanently removing
I hope someone here can tell me about all the aspects of this situation of
which I am unaware in addition to the actual legal perspective.
> In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
> - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
> - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
> - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
> Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.
I'm Shun, Japanese wikipedian.
I attended Wikimania and saw Florence's session. I think that was a
Please give me the presentation file. I intend to show it to the
Japanese people that didn't come to wikimania with my impression.