FYI
http://www.zotero.org/blog/zotero-and-the-internet-archive-join-forces/
Recently the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awarded the Center for
History and New Media and the Internet Archive $1.2 million dollars to
develop new services that will aid scholarly sharing, collaboration,
citation, and annotation.
In 2008, users will be able to drag and drop items into the "Zotero
Commons"—a dedicated part of the Internet Archive's servers—through
icon in the left column.
Zotero Commons
Items donated to the Commons will be stored in subdirectories of the
Commons named for the donors. In addition to encouraging donations to
the commons (since those donating will receive credit for their
contributions), this feature will also enable users to identify others
who are working with and/or annotating the same content, fostering new
collaboration opportunities. The benefits to the scholarly community
of the Common are thus threefold:
1) The availability of permanent, persistent archival, off-site
storage for long-term management and use of digital content.
2) The ability to share resources publicly for easy access by other scholars.
3) The simplified discovery of new, related resources and potential
collaboration opportunities.
As an added incentive to donate to the Commons, the Internet Archive
will provide free OCR for your contributions and send you the
transcribed text to help you search your personal library.
In addition, modifications will be made to Zotero to make it easier
for researchers to select already archived files and web pages from
the Internet Archive's existing collections rather than saving local
copies. This will enable better referencing of "born digital" items
and allow for the collaborative annotation of web documents.
Zotero Commons and Zotero 2.0
Zotero 2.0 will allow you to sync your library's metadata to the Zotero Server.
You will sync your metadata with the Zotero server
With Zotero Commons you will be able to contribute public domain
images, texts, audio and other files.
You can also contribute files to the Zotero Commons
In turn, the Internet Archive will send you any text extracted from
donated documents.
--
Erik Möller
Dear all,
In my country, as well as in many countries (though not all), today is
the first day of the new year. First of all, as is traditional, let me
present my [[edit:wishes]] to all of you. I hope you will be in good
health, will meet many successes, and will have fun in what you are doing.
Second, I would like to share with you my wikimedia-related-stuff wish
list. I am pretty sure we will not all have the same, not even amongst
board members, but here is my list anyway. As it is not a good idea to
be too greedy, I limited myself to 10 wishes.
1. Quality
2. Promotion of lesser known projects
3. Software development
4. License, international laws and compatibility
5. Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility
6. Wikicouncil
7. Chapters and general assembly
8. Board membership, election
9. financial sustainability, controls and independance
10. Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
1. Quality
Quality has two sides. First, content should actually be of quality
(accuracy, completeness, up-to-date information, and ease of reading).
And second, content should actually be perceived as of quality.
Several communities have made great efforts to improve quality, with for
example rules such as the biographies of living people
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons).
Some projects, such as the german wikipedia, have been recognized of
better quality than a traditional very respectable german encyclopedia.
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/German_Wikipedia).
I hope that in the coming 2008 year, the Wikimedia Foundation will do
its best to provide the technical tools (to identify quality versions),
the public relations support (to communicate more efficiently on success
stories and lessen PR crisis when they occur), better OTRS and legal
support (to answer complains and legal threats), but also the leadership
to make sure that more projects adopt rules leading to better quality
(eg, living people biographies).
For now 2 years, since the Seigenthaler controversy, the english
wikipedia has been in full gear toward better quality, and have received
much support in that regard. It does not seem to me that other projects
have received as much attention and support from the Foundation, and the
size reached by several other languages, as well as the increasing
number of legal requests in some of the biggest Wikipedia (such as
french and german languages) suggest that it is high time to expand the
focus beyond the traditional english territory. I also recognize that
languages barriers and diversity of national laws are making this a big
challenge, but it is in such challenges that we will prove really being
an international organization.
2. Promotion of lesser known projects
Whilst Wikipedia has probably reached the top of its fame in the press
of many nations, and enjoys the largest communities, other wikimedia
projects are being increasingly successful. Commons has now over
2.000.000 free objects and is a unique case of multilingual
community-based project. The largest Wiktionary is not english speaking,
but french-speaking, a unique situation in wikimedia project and
probably a showcase for the francophony. Wikibooks now hosts several
high quality books, and also receive as donations, books originally
under regular copyright protection and released under a free license,
again, showcases of the interest of the educational world for the free
movement.
I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the
Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press
release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific
technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.
3. Software development
I am pretty sure it is an evidence to anyone that our software
development is much behind, not because of a lack of great ideas, but
rather of human power.
I would like to see this year a system implemented to collect technical
wishlists from each project; outreach to developer open-source
communities; a well-outlined technical roadmap, with goals, resources
and deadlines. And yeah, results. It might be worth also seeing how the
Foundation could help on the tool server side.
4. License, international laws and compatibility
In the past year, new policy regarding media object has been
implemented, but I still see many questions coming in from communities,
which do not always know how to implement our policies with regards to
different laws. It seems that often, the answer proposed is "as long as
it fits the american law, all is fine". I do not consider that a valid
answer, unless we are trying to build a freely-licensed content for
american citizens.
My wish would be that these communities receive clear and constructive
answers, in a timely fashion.
Very recently, the board took some steps making it possible to migrate
in the future to a CC license, in order to improve compatibility with
other freely-licenses works as well as to facilitate re-use of our
content. I hope this evolution will happen along with our longstanding
traditions of strong community input and control over major decisions
affecting the projects.
5. Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility
Next summer, Wikimania, our annual conference will take place in Egypt,
at Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
Bibliotheca Alexandrina was inaugurated in 2002 to recapture the spirit
of the ancient Library of Alexandria, one of the oldest libraries of the
world. The new Library and its affiliated research centers are devoted
to using the newest technology to preserve the past and to promote
access to the products of the human intellect. Choosing that place
provides us with fabulous opportunities to increase awareness in the
region about Wikipedia, its sister projects and the libre knowledge
movement, but also to anchor our projects, based on very modern
technologies, with ancient spirit of wisdom and traditional knowledge.
I would be quite amazed if this could not be a very neat PR opportunity
and could not be in particular sponsored by governments, non profit
educational organizations and big international organizations. In 2007,
a lot of work has been provided for WMF to be recognized as a charity,
and for WMF to be involved in various decision-making circles for global
education. I hope WMF will be able to take benefit of this recognition.
Regarding participation and program, my wish would be that WMF makes
real efforts to fund participation of many of our core participants, and
use this opportunity to make "transmission of experience", and
discussion and improvement of "civility" on the projects, a major part
of Wikimania program. In the past year, I remember a very interesting
workshop on this topic in Wikimania Taipei, several projects suffer from
limited civility, in particular toward newcomers, and several of our
members suffer cyberstalking in 2007. This is unacceptable. We must take
the time to think about wikilove, and work to improve relationships
between participants. Arguably, our projects are an example of peace
making process (seriously :-)).
6. Wikicouncil
I would like the Wikicouncil idea to be revived and implemented. For
past discussion, please have a look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil.
The Wikimedia Global Council would be a body of representatives for all
projects who could serve alongside the elected members of the Board.
Our projects are now far too big to easily permit circulation of
information between community and organization. My belief is that we
need an intermediary body. Please join the discussion.
7. Chapters and general assembly
The relationship between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation has improved
over the past year. There are now guidelines for creation, some chapters
have received the permission to use trademarks within certain limits,
several chapters were created etc....
However, it is still not sufficient. My wishlist is that further work be
done to clarify relationships and lines of authority, and that a meeting
be held annually with the chapters. I had hoped this assembly would
occur in winter 2007, but this was delayed. I would like the board to
agree to a meeting with wmf and chapters in spring 2008.
8. Board membership, election
The board recently lost two members, Michael and Erik, who need to be
replaced. The board also agreed to an expansion of the board, up to 11
members. However, to be transparent on this topic, there is strong
disagreement on the board about what the board should be in the future.
Some members consider that the priority is that the board stays
primarily a body representing the community, so that the community stays
in control of the projects future. Missing skills would be then
completed by senior staff members, many of which have recently joined
the team and more senior staff being expected. Professionalization of
the Foundation would mostly concern the staff, but not so much the
board, who would have in turn to heavily rely on staff.
Other members argue that most community members lack the proper skills
to be good members of a non profit organization the size and importance
of Wikimedia Foundation, and lack the experience of american
non-profits. They wish that the board professionalize as well. This
would mean cutting down pretty severely in the number of community
members, in particular elected, and would mean the arrival of various
american big shots in replacement. In the same vein, these members argue
that officers of WMF (chair and treasurer in particular) should not be
community members, but rather individuals experienced in various skills
(finances, legal, fundraising, management etc...), but also seasonned
experts to deal with the high level companies and individuals we are now
facing (as potential partners or competitors).
Needless to say, these two visions of the future are not totally
compatible, and both visions hold a certain truth, which makes it doubly
difficult to deal with.
One thing is certain, the past is well behind us, and the time when we
could quietly grow is over. Key questions are "which view will dominate"
and "how much does the community want to be involved in that decision".
I stand noisily and strongly in the first view, as I believe in
1) an editing community in control of the projects they are creating
2) a need for independence, which excludes adding to the board many
outsiders, tied by multiple conflict of interests
3) building an international organization, which seems incompatible with
adding many outsiders all coming from the same nation (not to say the
same city).
The risks of that position is that limited skills on the board might
make us easy preys and might make us easily fall in legal or financial
pits. We might also exhaust the professional team ;-)
Switching to a more professional board, with professional officers might
make us stronger and might reveal a good idea in the long run. Risks are
mostly loss of control and loss of independence. Another aspect is that
the current board is willing to give a lot of its volunteer time. As our
quest for a treasurer has shown, most professionals will either only
accept to join against a stipend, or will mostly rely on the staff,
merely becoming rubber stampers.
What should really be my wish list on this point ?
I am not quite sure, but I think my wish list would probably be that we
take time through each of the steps of our evolution. Professionalizing
the staff means most of the staff is brand new and have to be introduced
to our projects. Switching to a professional board means most of the
board is also brand new and many have to be introduced to our projects.
Doing both changes in a matter of couple of months, strikes me as more
than unsuitable. It is "dangerous". My wish list would be that
revolution be achieved in at least a year. As such, I would like that
the board is expanded including mostly community members, as an interim
board if necessary, and the brutal professionalization currently
proposed be delayed until the end of the year.
9. Financial sustainability, controls and independence
By now, it should be obvious to everyone that the audit of our previous
fiscal year is taking more time than we would hope for, but it is all in
audit firm hands now. Last fiscal year was difficult both because of the
amazing growth of our projects, our limited revenue not making it
possible to hire all the necessary staff at first, followed by high
staff turn-over in spring 07.
However, as the organization matures, the Wikimedia Foundation has begun
implementing more necessary policies and procedures, considered normal
practices for any healthy organization. The hiring of Sue Gardner,
executive director, and Mike Godwin, our general counsel, has played a
central role in ensuring that these new checks and balances are
implemented properly. Sue also brought in Mona Venkateswaran, a former
auditor and a CA, to assess Wikimedia's internal financial controls and
systems, and recommend improvements. In summary, the Foundation has
enacted many new controls, employee processes and procedures, and
accountability systems. A first wish will naturally be that we keep on
improving :-), that audit next year be done in a couple of weeks and
detailed budget be voted before next summer.
My second wish is related to financial sustainability and independence.
I would like that no decisions be taken on the paths to follow to
achieve sustainability, without the involvement of the board and of the
community.
10. Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
Last wish is actually clearly related to several points listed above,
but I chose to mention it as a goal again, to insist on its importance.
In fall 2006, the board chose me as chair, in a courageous move to
evolve from a foundator based organization, to a more mature, group-led
organization. At that time, the organization had only a couple of staff
members. No real formal policies or procedures. Less than one board
meeting a year. No agendas etc...
I believe I helped the organization grow to the next step, which is just
in front of us: moving from a group-led micro organization with a
working board, to an organization with clear delineation between staff
and board. I hope that the coming year will show a smooth and successful
transition to our new professsional organization, where roles and
responsibilities of all parties, board, staff and community, will be
better understood and acknowledged, for the benefit of our project, in a
shared vision.
In wikilove
Anthere/Florence
For some of us, Christmas is just around the corner. Which means some of
us will be little available in the next few days.
Being leaving you, I would like to share with you part of an article
(which you may find in a rather famous encyclopedia). I invite all of
you to read it carefully.
----------
Transparency, as used in the humanities, implies openness,
communication, and accountability.
Transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials
accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open
to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may
be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to
discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity
for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.
Transparency cannot exist as a purely one-way communication though. If
the media and the public knows everything that happens in all
authorities and county administrations there will be a lot of questions,
protests and suggestions coming from media and the public. People who
are interested in a certain issue will try to influence the decisions.
Transparency creates an everyday participation in the political
processes by media and the public. One tool used to increase everyday
participation in political processes is Freedom of Information
legislation and requests.
Modern democracy builds on such participation of the people and media.
There are, for anybody who is interested, many ways to influence the
decisions at all levels in society.
The elections and referendums are no longer the prime or only way for
the people to rule itself. The democracy is working continuously, and
the elections are there just to make major changes in the political course.
While a liberal democracy can be a plutocracy, where decisions are taken
behind locked doors and the people have very small possibilities to
influence the politics between the elections, a participative democracy
is much closer connected to the will of the people.
Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure
statements, the freedom of information legislation, budgetary review,
audits, etc.
In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics,
sociology, etc., transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is
transparent if all information about it is open and freely available.
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux
community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information
of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or
nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves
also published. This is known as radical transparency.
---------
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are
asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical
transparency is not really suitable for us, in most part because we are
in the eye-storm of the media interest and that any scandal (or
non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the interest of a journalist,
and likely to spread at light-speed all over the planet.
Why should we care ? Collectively, we are likely to mostly care because
of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of
donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of
disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
Some of us also care for personal reasons. Either because public
displays of screw-ups will damage their public image and possibly their
income.
And perhaps should we also care because of a possible impact on the way
the quality of our products is perceived. But frankly, I do not believe
this impact is significant. People can see if a product is valuable or
not and will not necessarily care so much about the background story.
Since I became chair, the board did some mistakes of appreciation. More
than one. I can stand up for all the mistakes of appreciation I made. I
am not ashamed of what we did. We were not perfect, far from it. I do
not think anyone could have been perfect. The mistakes made may come
from various reasons. None of us are professionals. We are all dispersed
around the world, which makes it more difficult to communicate, share
opinions, simply see what is really going on in the office or imagine
what is going on in the head of a staff and board member. Mistakes were
also done because of lack of funds and because of insufficient human
resources, putting us on the verge of our own physical abilities. For
example, we are looking for a treasurer. Can we reasonably appoint
someone most of us have never met ? Likely not, but the next time we
will try to all meet together is february. Which means delaying any
appointment till then at least. Should we prefer to wait till february
or should we prefer to appoint someone some of us never met ?
Other mistakes, and these ones are much more difficult to forgive, were
made because of conflicts of interest.
I trust that most of you would generally agree that mistakes were
understandable, given the circonstances, IF you were fully informed of
the details.
Unfortunately, some of those mistakes are not, and will not, be
discussed publicly. And the main reason is not that we fear your
criticism, but is that we fear the consequences of a public display of
these mistakes, and do not necessarily want someone to be made a scapegoat.
However, in the recent weeks, my belief is that, we have seen
- a tendency to make things more and more private (to avoid information
leaking), eg, restricting access to our internal list or creating an
even more private list.
- a tendency to shut down requests and criticism, whether on this list
or even on private lists, in an attempt to canalize the nature of
information being made available
- a tendency to craft "authorized" messaging, accompanied with severe
criticism against trusted members deviating from this authorized messages
Not all ideas in these three tendencies are wrong. Standardization may
be a good idea in some circonstances and facilitate daily operations.
Privacy to discuss sensitive matters is obviously a good idea. And
speaking with a unique voice rather than a cloud of voices is strengthening.
But I would advise going too far on that path. It is not healthy
generally, it is frustrating many good contributors. In an environmental
situation which is very unstable with competitors, a rather
decentralized, flexible system, with plenty of opportunities to jump in
the system, is usually considered the best solution.
Ant
2008/1/2, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>:
> Bi-yearly (or "biannually") if I understood correctly. As I understand
> it those who are going to be elected in June of 2008 will stand till
> 2010 (please correct me if I am wrong); and those whose term continues
> to 2009 will be up for re-election then, to another two year term, or
> something like that...
>
> I have to confess that the vagueness of Antheres statements on this
> matter gives me some pause.
>
I meant that we elect every year board members, not per se the same
seats. If we elect this year seat A and B, and next year C and D, we
elect every year two board members :) (and can give a signal that way)
> <lots of other good comments about what advice might be useful from outside>
> .
> .
> .
> > However, as might be clear by now, this does not mean that the
> > community representatives are no longer needed in the Board of
> > Trustees. Because there is quite a difference between representatives
> > in the Final Authority, and an Advisory Council.
> .
> .
> .
> <talk about the size of the board of trustees, which I won't comment on>
> .
> .
> .
> > To summarize: It is necessary to have both community representatives
> > and external experts with their specific skills in the Board of
> > Trustees. A Wikimedia Council should be comparable with the current
> > Advisory Board, but then for volunteers. It is not necessary to have
> > all experts in the Board of Trustees, but they might very well be in
> > the Advisory Board too. It might though be wise for the Board of
> > Trustees to involve these experts then somewhat more actively.
>
> This is the point I would like to focus on. How vital is the necessity to
> have these experts directly on the board? That is as a trustee who
> votes directly on bylaws etc. Wouldn't it be possible to consider what
> could be directly delegated to the board of advisors (and other organs
> of the foundation where outside contributions would be welcome), if
> the wish is for certain matters to be handled by non-community
> experts?
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
I think that a few expert board members have certainly their
advantages. As I said before, it will for instance force all board
members to stay focused, and it will make sure that in a case where it
is experts vs community, both parties will have to try very hard to
get a majority. I also think that experts do add a value to the board.
They can make sure that the board pays attention to the right things
(and can enforce this, as they are member of it, and equals, not just
advisors), they will be able to directly use their contacts in a good
way etc. I think that these experts are actually most usefull when
their help is not wanted by the community members :) Because those are
the moments they will make the difference. Therefore I see it
necessary that they will be part of the board, and as I said before,
50/50 would be ideal imho, considering Jimmy 50% community, and 50%
expert :) (assuming overlap is not possible here ;-) )
BR, Lodewijk
BR, Lodewijk
Alison writes:
> Setting aside for the moment my concerns that Erik is writing
> opinions
> here now that he has been appointed DepED, a clear conflict of
> involvement
> if not of interest ...
In my own experience of nonprofits, it has not been considered
problematic for staff members to express opinions on matters of
policy, including organizational governance. At the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and
at Public Knowledge -- the three nonprofits I worked at before coming
to Wikimedia Foundation -- it was considered a benefit, and not a
conflict, for staff members to offer input about how they believed the
organizations should run. I would hate it if we felt we had to depart
from that tradition here.
So, my belief is not only that it isn't a problem for Erik to offer
his opinion, but also that it's a sign of organizational health that
he can do so. I also think that it helps the community to hear how
staff members think about such issues -- certainly more helpful than
if the staff feels compelled to keep quiet about them. (It's also
helpful to staff to hear where the community disagrees with staff
opinions -- but we can't know when such disagreements occur unless
staff are free to offer opinions.)
I hope my own opinion is taken in the spirit in which it's offered!
--Mike