On 1/31/08, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You do realise the head of the translator committee is banned from
> ja:wp due to personal disagreements? Communities have attacks of
> batshit insane, and that's too much power to hand to one project.
Yes, and did you read my email a little bit more careful? :)
Andres:
- en.wp lifted ban under pressure of its own community.
- If they didn't do that, they would have to do that after implementing SUL.
- If they knew that their decision would affect all other wikis, they
wouldn't be so crazy to do that.
About en-wpization of the community: This is just an unreasonable
fear. Some of very important en-Wikipedians didn't pass even voting
for adminship on Meta. Policy like this would initiate much more
participation of member of a lot of different Wikimedian projects into
Meta issues.
On 1/31/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> A logical extension of Milos' proposal could arise if someone
> persistently insisted on pushing a Serbian POV on hr:wp. The Croatians
> would become very annoyed with this until that individual met one of the
> criteria which Milos suggests. They would block him, and the logical
> consequence would then be that he should also be blocked on sr:wp.
> Somehow, I don't see that this would necessarily be an acceptable result.
sr/hr is not the main issue (usually, the same vandals and trolls are
blocked on both Wikipedias); the main issue are POV pushers on en.wp
who are spreading their own POV on their own, smaller projects; and,
consequently, building heavy POV community; as well as unacceptable
behaviors of some other communities -- which are completely out of the
scope of WM goals.
Lodewijk: All great ideas were unacceptable at the beginning :)))
Florence,
This is a very commendable email, and I admire its simplicity. The values
you suggest are instinctive to anyone who has been involved in the projects for
a while, but as Wikimedia grows, it is important to reiterate them again and
again for new staff and new project members, who have not been raised on
them.
That said, I do have a couple of questions and hope that you can clarify.
In a message dated 1/29/2008 5:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
anthere(a)anthere.org writes:
Our community is our biggest asset
We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of
staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission.
We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the
work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into
account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Question: "Community" has always been a mantra of our projects. As such, I
was a bit surprised by an email exchange with Jay Walsh last week, in which he
said: "I'm hesitant to use the word 'community' as much as I'm hesitant to
call people 'audience.' In reaching out to communicate, so far at least, I'm
more inclined to speak of users, editors, stakeholders, casual readers etc -
but this is my personal interpretation." I found his comment counter-intuitive,
given the nature of the projects to date, and wonder if you might clarify
your opinion on "community" and the terms used to describe it.
of service is a priority
We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project
content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to
regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project
content.
To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do
not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our
content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom
We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and
to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and
editable with free software.
Question: This was the subject of some debate last week, also on this
mailing list. Are we committed "exclusively" to open and patent-free media formats
that are viewable and editable with free software?
Transparency
We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent,
thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to
the public.
Independance
As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations,
grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our
organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this
reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to
refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply
the number of sources.
Question: As a charitable organization, it is easy to become dependent on
the largesse of major donors, who could hold considerable sway over day-to-day
operations. The answer is either to find an independent revenue stream or to
create an endowment to ensure that basic costs are covered in perpetuity.
Frankly, I am biased. I believe that "Independence" is the most important of
these values--without it we will not be able to withstand challenges to all the
other values. As such, what steps are being taken to ensure the Foundation's
financial independence?
I believe in the values as you expressed them, and I am confident that the
Board will vote unanimously in support of them. I am just curious about some of
the practical implications, and eager to hear your thoughts on them.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
In a message dated 1/31/2008 5:23:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sgardner(a)wikimedia.org writes:
The St Petersburg office will shut down Thursday, January 31, and at
that point, we will say goodbye to Barbara Brown (office manager), Sandy
Ordonez (head of communications) and Vishal Patel (business
development).
Since this was a very short good-bye, I just thought I would add to it.
Although I haven't been staff for almost a year, I worked personally with
Barbara, Sandy, and Vishal, and wanted to thank them personally.
Many people do not know about the difficult work they did behind the scenes,
but it really kept the gears greased and the Foundation running, in good
times and in difficult times.
Personally, I want to thank Barbara for keeping the office homey, making
sure that it was stocked with food, and even ensuring that it was all neat and
orderly. Despite my grumblings (I like eating at my desk ...), I appreciated
that, and I know everyone else did too.
Sandy arrived at an unusual time, but immediately began learning the ropes
and jumped right in when we needed it most. It wasn't always easy, but she rose
to the challenge.
Vishal began as an intern, and by force of circumstances found himself
taking a lot of my responsibilities. He rose to the challenge with a real sense of
vision of what the Foundation could be.
Thanks
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
As Sue's report shows, Sandy Ordonez is leaving the Cabal^WFoundation.
Sandy has expressed an interest in getting involved in Wikinews and has -
with some help from Mike Halterman - lined up an interview for next week.
Okay, it isn't highbrow, just one of the winners of "America's Next Top
Model", however I hope everyone on the list would join me in wishing Sandy
the best of luck in her future endeavors. Both on and off-wiki.
Brian McNeil
Another sensible suggestion.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild(a)gmail.com>
Date: 31 Jan 2008 20:37
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Crosswiki blocking
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello,
A more feasible proposal (than global blocking) which I've put forth
before is crosswiki blocking. A Special:BlockCrosswiki page on Meta
could be used by stewards to block a user on any project, preferably
updating the log on that project. The interface would work in
precisely the same way as the current crosswiki Special:Userrights,
with a steward blocking "Pathoschild's_proposal_sucks!@enwiki" from
Meta.
This doesn't have the problems of global blocking, and it would be
extremely useful in stopping wiki-jumping vandals. Without crosswiki
blocking, a steward needs to navigate to each project, register an
account or log in, navigate to Special:Userrights and set admin access
from Meta, navigate to Special:Blockip and block the vandal from the
local project, and switch back to Special:Userrights on Meta to remove
their admin access. By the time they're done, the vandal has hit six
more wikis. Obviously, the current way we do things is ridiculous and
not scalable in the least.
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
For the sake of international harmony:
You have reached the Wikimedia Foundation. Our phone options have recently
changed, so please listen to the entire menu before making your choice.
To hear this message in English, press 1
To hear this message in German, press 2
To hear this message in French, press 3
.....
To hear this message in Kurdish, press 236
To hear this message in Ovimbundu, press 237
To hear this messag in Yanomami, press 238
...
To hear this message in Eyak, press 4,312
To hear this message in Labradorian Inuktitut, press 4,313
....
To hear this message in Ancient Egyptian of the Middle Kingdom Era press
12,747
To hear this message in Classical Moabite, press 12,748
etc.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Greetings all,
Some time ago GeorgeMoney wrote me a nice script to do some basic
checking on cloak requests (see [[m:IRC cloaks]]). This system stood
the test of time, but it was observed that some improvements could be
made by some coders. I am pleased to announce that a new system has
now been put into production that should speed up requests by doing
more automatic checking and thus eliminating many common requests.
Additionally, translation of the interface is possible and thus we can
make things easier for those who do not speak English or where it is
not their first language - the old system did not have this.
Translations are not really done at present, but the system in English
is very much ready for use so go take a look:
<http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/wmfgcbot/> - hope you like the castle.
At this point I would like to extent humble gratitude to
[[m:User:Martinp23]] and [[m:User:Kalan]] (enhydra) for coding the IRC
bot and web components of this service respectively. They have worked
tirelessly to get this working while I just sat back and fired off
suggestions for improvements in a naive fashion. We will be releasing
the source when it has been cleaned up; a combination of C# and PHP.
Thanks,
Sean
What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
people?
Note that I'm asking 'effectively communicate' not 'communicate in a
language historically spoken by the ancestors of each person' or other
interpretations. Well understood and comfortably used second and
third languages are acceptable.
I think I vaguely know an answer to this, but I'd like a good citation
so that I will not be called a bigot by the sort of people who think
we must support 25,000 'languages' in order to support the world.
Ideally I'd like to know the number of people reached as a function of
supporting the N top languages.
This seems like a simple and important question which others should
have asked and answered definitively long ago, yet I can't seem to
find a good reference. It also seems to me to be the sort of question
which should play an important role in the foundation's long term
resource allocations.
Hi folks,
I’m delighted to announce that Veronique Kessler will be the Wikimedia
Foundation’s new Chief Financial and Operating Officer (CFOO). Veronique
will start with us February 4.
Veronique has 15 years of very strong managerial and financial
experience working with a wide range of organizations. She joins us from
the non-profit Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, where she was
Director of Finance and, before that, Controller. Prior to JCCSF, she
did financial consulting for clients such as Stanford University,
brokerage firm Charles Schwab, and the venture capital and investment
firm Berkeley International Capital Corporation. And before that, she
was Controller for the Walden International Investment Group, financial
reporting manager for the private investment company The Fremont Group,
a senior accountant with the Wells Fargo bank, and a senior auditor with
Deloitte & Touche, one of the world’s “big four” audit firms.
Veronique is a CPA (certified public accountant), with a B.A. in
Economics from the University of California at Santa Cruz. She has a
strong and varied international background including work with Hong
Kong, China, Indonesia, Taiwan and Singapore, and she speaks fluent French.
The role of the Wikimedia Foundation’s CFOO is to oversee our financial
and operational activities. In general, Veronique will ensure that the
Foundation operates smoothly, effectively, and in compliance with 501(c)
standards and generally-accepted accounting principles.
She will report to me. The heads of business development (Kul Wadhwa)
and fundraising (hiring in progress) will report to her, as will our
office manager (Erica Ortega), my assistant (Cheryl Owens, formerly
Steffen), and our accountant (currently Oleta McHenry, in St. Petersburg).
The Chief Financial and Operating Officer is a critical position for the
Wikimedia Foundation, and I am thrilled we have found such a
highly-qualified person to handle this important role. Veronique's
delighted to be joining us – she’s excited by the importance and global
impact of our work, and is looking forward to being part of the
open-source and free culture movement.
Please join me in welcoming her to the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks,
Sue
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation