I apologize for the previous email, which was sent inadvertently.
In a message dated 1/24/2008 8:08:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org writes:
Hi folks - keeping you informed,
Earlier today we made an announcement in concert with the Collaborative
Creativity Group at UNU-MERIT [a joint research and training centre of United
Nations University (UNU) and Maastricht University] about the first ever
survey of Wikipedians.
Thanks for this message. It could be argued that people have surveyed
Wikipedians privately before (I just received an email this morning from someone
conducting a survey of Wikipedians), but this seems to be the first such survey
under the aegis of the WMF.
As such, it raises man interesting questions, the chief of which for me is:
"How is 'Wikipedian' defined?" In Hebrew, the word for definition is
"hagdarah," from the root "gader," or fence. In other words, when you define
something, you put a fence around it, defining what is inside and what is out. When
conducting a survey of Wikipedians, you are similarly determining "Who is in"
and "Who is out."
Since you are very new to the community, I am sure Erik has informed you
that this definition has long been debated on mailing lists, at meetings of
staff and chapter leaders, at Wikimanias, and in various other fora. One such
argument, which immediately comes to mind, was an email by Sj about two years
ago, in which he suggested a very inclusive definition (from the pipes to the
minarets, as he put it). Others, myself included, sought something a tad more
exclusive. To the best of my knowledge, this issue was never resolved.
Perhaps that is because in an open project, such as Wikipedia, the
boundaries are so fluid. Are staff considered Wikipedians? What about people who left
the project, but who were largely responsible for establishing its
infrastructure? What about trolls (Willie on Wheels has a hell of a lot of edits)? What
about metapedians, who deal with policies, but have very few edits? What
about critics, particularly critics who come from within the community? In the
English Wikipedia there is often a debate as to whether Jimmy himself is part
of the community or not--I do not know if the same debate occurs in other
projects. While one might answer cynically that it all depends on what is
convenient at the moment, the fact is that there is a certain fluidity of
boundaries which must be taken into account.
Having rambled on about this, I am, again, curious to understand how you
define community for the purposes of this survey? Nor is this just a
philosophical issue; there are practical ramifications as well. For instance, when Imran
and I organized the first community board elections, we had to determine who
could vote--in other words, we had to determine who the community was. The
result was only partially successful, as there were many exceptions to
consider (could developers vote, for instance). In fact, at that time there was some
effort to distinguish between "Contributing Active Members" and "Volunteer
Users," whatever that meant. Only much later did the Board decide to abandon
these definitions--and the principle of membership--entirely.
It seems to me that by conducting a survey such as this, of Wikipedians, all
of these issues have been resolved. So, for purposes of clarification, how
is Wikipedian being defined in his poll?
I apologize for the length of this post, but I believe that all these qu
estions merit answers.
Danny
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
Dear Wikimedians,
The 2007 Picture of the Year competition is now concluded, and we are
happy to announce the results:
WINNER: '''Broadway Tower in Cotswolds, England.''' ([[:Image:Broadway
tower edit.jpg]]) by [[:en:User:Newton2|Newton2]]. 84 votes
RUNNER-UP: '''New York City at night, USA.''' ([[:Image:New York City
at night HDR.jpg]]) by ''Paulo Barcellos Jr.''. 67 votes
2ND RUNNER-UP: '''Red Squirrel in the Hofgarten in Düsseldorf'''
([[:Image:Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg]]) by [[User:Ray
eye|Ray eye]]. 66 votes
In the first round, there were 665 voting among 514 images. The top 28
made it to the final, where 919 voters voted. Congratulations to all
the contributors who helped create these beautiful works and made them
available to the world as free content.
A complete listing of the voting totals, along with selected voter
comments, is available at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Results
.
Thanks to all the voters for participating, and we look forward to
doing it all again for 2008. :)
Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007
daniwo59 at aol.com HYPERLINK
"mailto:foundation-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20Fund
raising%20%26%20Networking%20updates&In-Reply-To="daniwo59 at aol.com
Wed Jan 23 21:06:15 UTC 2008
said,
Of course, that entails endorsement, which is, in itself, advertising, and
exclusive advertising at that. When I worked in the office, a major computer
company suggested just that, but it was turned down. One reason (and not the
only reason) was because it would have entailed putting "Powered by XXX" on
every page (there were also hardware issues, but I am not qualified to speak
about that).
And if it is decided to go with advertising, there are less obtrusive and
more financially beneficial ways to do it. And by financially beneficial, I
mean
by several orders of magnitude.
And we are not beholden to a single company.
Danny
>>>Thanks Danny, Just replied to Kul about the “powered by XXX” on every
page approach, which in an OpenSource world is anathema to all, especially
considering the increasingly distributed and intraoperative nature of IP
ICT. But we all feel the need for a new SUSTAINABLE model of media. To these
old eyes the wiki approach, and WMF’s culture, is one key as it presents a
different model for National Libraries to build global ones. I.e. This
approach is a pipe dream. HYPERLINK
"http://www.worlddigitallibrary.org/project/english/video.html"http://www.worlddigitallibrary.org/project/english/video.html
The missing factor is the virtual classrooms through which a constantly
changing virtual page is made understandable. If we’re trying to spread
knowledge and not just deliver content then pages need associated forums
where the old can progress their research and the new can get initiated
(without interrupting the old farts). If I wanted content, I’d go here.
HYPERLINK
"http://www.ocwconsortium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&I
temid=29"http://www.ocwconsortium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=15&Itemid=29
I haven’t done a breakdown on (even) Wikipedia but in commercial terms, if I
compare to Myspace, it’s obviously in the $US billions. But we both know
that’s not the point. It’s useless raising money unless it’s made clear what
the intention for it is. I’m a little fortunate as I’ve sat on both sides of
the fence, between the endless arguments of editors and advertising
salespeople. So yo can imagine, with the thousands of globally remote
editors around WMF projects, I’m not likely to want to become meat in the
sandwich.
This IS a new model of media, it’s interactive and global, and no one’s got
a handle on it quite yet. But it’s the journey that important, right? You’ve
been lucky enough to be involved with its conception. I is jealous. Regards,
simon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1241 - Release Date: 24/01/2008
9:58 AM
Kul Takanao Wadhwa HYPERLINK
"mailto:foundation-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20Fund
raising%20%26%20Networking%20updates&In-Reply-To=6hfmtm%242mbrsq%40smtp06.sy
d.iprimus.net.au"kwadhwa at wikimedia.org
Wed Jan 23 20:50:27 UTC 2008
Simon,
There are a lot of issues we need to examine here (including carefully
analyzing what we have doing up to this point) but I appreciate the
input. Believe me, we are going to take a look and investigate all
the possibilities here. Please keep the comments coming...thanks.
--Kul
>>> Analyzing? I imagine that’s an understatement. Congrats to you and Jay.
I wish I was a fly on the wall, the possibilities being so endless. I can
imagine it’s a very different culture from where you’ve come from; the idea
of this well attended feedback thread being a revelation for most non
profits. The transparency is great, but all subjects on one thread is
insane, and impossible to follow for us slow learners, as I’ve said earlier
(if you could find it). HYPERLINK
"http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/038027.html"
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/038027.html
I’ve just been wrapped on the knuckles for not keeping up.
So in the interests of keeping Transparency with a big T and saving our
eyes, could I ask that you set up a forum on wikback. I know it’s new but so
are you, I and Jay. It would be nice to take a methodical approach and save
answering the same questions about the issues. Could I also ask that yo
might set up a page (say Revenue opportunities) on meta and link directly to
the thread where discussion about its subjective issues takes place. I think
you’ll find if we use this model then its utility will begin to be seen
across the wikiuniverse, and conjure a new revenue stream which may be
acceptable to the WMF’s global communities.
The main point is that we now have to deal with global groups and share
their learning in real time as opposed to making decisions internally in a
head office and expecting everyone to suddenly change their behaviour when
an announcement is made. E.g, I feel for Erik when all he’s trying to do is
get video into the wiki media mix, and the purists want to flog him as much
as they do themselves. It’s the journey not the arrival, although in
monetary terms taking this approach may speed things up.
I take it you’ve gone through the obvious things like “powered by xxx” on
every page, etc. But if we could go through the possibilities in an orderly
fashion in a forum, at least we won’t have to explain why a decision has
been made. In general terms of course; we all know the inexperienced won’t
appreciate (or want to know) the finer points of building personal
relationships.
The main issue, so far as I can see (as I’ve said on that link above), is to
decide whether Foundation members prefer to take money from the public purse
or private purses. Each requires a very different strategy and will have
different outcomes. But this is not the place for discussion, so let me wish
you all the best and go now. Regards, simon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1241 - Release Date: 24/01/2008
9:58 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/media/21deal.html?ref=business
Getty Images, the world's biggest supplier of pictures and video to
media and advertising companies, has put itself on the auction block
and could fetch more than $1.5 billion, people briefed on the
situation said Sunday.
In a message dated 1/24/2008 9:49:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
wikipedia(a)att.net writes:
I think suggestions for actual survey
questions would be welcome. I imagine one of the very basic questions
the survey might ask is, "Do you consider yourself a Wikipedian?"
That would certainly be good. Then again, it leaves open the question of who
is being asked "Do you consider yourself ..." in the first place.
Danny
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
Hi folks - keeping you informed,
Earlier today we made an announcement in concert with the Collaborative Creativity Group at UNU-MERIT [a joint research and training centre of United
Nations University (UNU) and Maastricht University] about the first ever survey of Wikipedians.
The full announcement can be found at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/UNU_survey_agreement
At this stage the Collaborative Creativity Group and the Foundation are developing the survey, approach, and the overall implementation. We'll have
more details to share over the coming months.
The Collaborative Creativity Group has also set up a landing page at http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/
Next time I'll send notice of Foundation announcements closer to the actual release, still familiarizing with the communications systems.
Thanks for your time,
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
1 (415) 287-0680