> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:36:14 +0100
> From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820801221536k4cd7ba9ble15b4f9ea45a32c(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> Consider please what the WMF is, it is the organisation that makes our
> projects possible. It does the hosting, it provides the framework that
> allows our projects, our communities to thrive. It is however the projects,
> the communities that make a project work or not. It is not for the
> foundation to make a project work.
No, but the foundation should assist and communicate with all WMF
projects, which it does not.
> When a wiki failed we killed them. When a
> particular project does not have what it takes or its function is replaced
> elsewhere, it is for its community to go on or go elsewhere. When Wikipedia
> does better at news then Wikinews, it is for Wikinews to find its niche.
> News and particularly background information to news has been shown one of
> Wikipedias strong points. Asking Wikipedia not to do this is plain not
> realistic. Cooperation between these projects may be realistic but it is not
> assured.
>
It is realistic. Plain and simple: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you
want news on an encyclopedis, change it to "Wikipedia and news". Until
thin, this creates a competition between Wikinews and Wikipedia, *not*
collaboration.
> When you indicate that the WMF has to help projects, I disagree. Projects
> help themselves, the WMF may and can facilitate. It can do a lot of
> networking for the projects but it is the projects and their communities
> that will have to do the work. It is people that *do *that make the
> difference. When a particular project does a different or a better job,
> inside or outside the WMF framework, people will find it, recognise this.
> The most important thing the WMF can do is facilitate, make sure that
> connections between like minded projects exist. Help in mashing the data
> that exists in so many places and make it gell together. Because THIS is
> what the WMF is there for; providing people with information, not to save
> projects at any cost.
>
Makes no difference if the foundation/board pays no attention to it
projects, outside of Wikipedia. The foundation should help their
projects, meet their *needs* whenever possible, not ignore them. I never
said WMF has to save a project, but they should protect it them.
> Many projects have started based on the Wiki concept outside of the WMF.
> Many of them are as relevant or more relevant then WMF projects. They are
> however not our competition, they share with us and are part of the Wiki
> ecosystem. All these projects compete in a way and fill their niche. The
> notion that the WMF should safeguard its projects from other projects is
> self defeating; when projects lose their relevance inside or out, their
> readers, their editors their community will evaporate and there is little
> that an organisation can do about it.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
Right. The ones *not* in competition are the ones that are not the same
projects or similar to projects of WMF Wikieducator = Wikiverity and
Encyclopedia of Life = Wikispecies. Those IMHO are *direct* competition
and both of which receive an endorsement by WMF. Again, WMF needs to
endorse and think about their projects first and foremost. Period.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
Since we were talking about Kaltura and the video problem in general ...
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com>
Date: 23 Jan 2008 12:15
Subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Icommons] DIY Video Summit
To: commons-l <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Speaking of video... anyone live in California?
cheers
Brianna
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heather Ford <heather(a)icommons.org>
Date: 23 Jan 2008 23:12
Subject: [Icommons] DIY Video Summit
To: icommons(a)lists.ibiblio.org
iCommons is a friend of this awesome summit happening from 8-10
February at USC in California :) We're hoping to bring through some of
the workshops and discussions to the iSummit this year :)
http://icommons.org/calendar/247-a-diy-video-summit-1
Best,
Heather.
24/7: A DIY VIDEO SUMMIT
February 8-10, 2008
School of Cinematic Arts, University of Southern California
Conference web site: http://www.video24-7.org
Blog: http://diy.video24-7.org/
Registration is nearly full for the the academic panels and the
workshops. The video screenings are free and open to the public.
Please help us spread the word about this event.
24/7: A DIY Video Summit will bring together the many communities that
have evolved around do-it-yourself (DIY) video: artists, audiences,
technology providers, academics, policy makers and industry
executives. The aim is to discover common ground, and to chart the
path to a future in which grassroots and mainstream, amateur and
professional, artist and audience can all benefit as the medium
continues to evolve.
This three-day summit features:
SCREENINGS OF DIY VIDEO
On February 8 and 9, there will be screenings of DIY video that are
open to the public. These will feature curated programs on design
video, activist documentary, youth media, machinima, music video,
political remix and video blogging. The video program will culminate
in an evening program and reception on February 9 that will draw from
all of these video genres.
ACADEMIC PROGRAM
Registered attendees will have access to the academic program on
February 8 and 9 that features panels on The State of Research, The
State of the Art, DIY Media: The Intellectual Property Dilemma and DIY
Tools and Platforms. Featured speakers include Yochai Benkler, John
Seely Brown, Joi Ito, Henry Jenkins, Lawrence Lessig, and Howard
Rheingold.
WORKSHOPS AND BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER MEETINGS
On February 10, the day will be devoted to practical and hands-on
workshops for registered attendees on topics such as intellectual
property, media creation, distribution and new-media design tools.
Attendees will also have the option of organizing their own
birds-of-a-feather meetings to connect with other attendees.
Heather Ford
iCommons Executive Director
http://icommons.org
The iCommons Summit: 29 July - 1 August 2008, Sapporo, Japan
Phone: +27 11 327 3155
PO Box 1453, Saxonwold, 2132, Johannesburg
_______________________________________________
Icommons mailing list
Icommons(a)lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Correct me if I am wrong. But does the front page of Wikiversity say
that the project i for teachers students and researchers? If so, then
your argument is false.
No WMF project should, EVER, compete with one another. If we do, we may
as well take the collaborative scheme, and throw it out of the window too.
This "competition" goes against the WMF's mission.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:36:15 +0100
> From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820801212236v70332058qdf7cf18df083a835(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> In principle I would agree that the WMF could build all kinds of everything.
> In practice the WMF has not been able to implement a project like Single
> User Login in almost two year now I think it is. Practically it is either a
> really dedicated and/or talented person that gets something organised or it
> just does not happen.
>
> Also in the Open Source world it is a given that competing projects
> invigorate each other because of their perceived competition. This may seem
> rather Darwinistic but hey it seems to work for them so why not for us ? The
> approach taken by Wikiversity and Wikieducator is markedly different.
> Wikieducator is very much organised for and by people who are working in the
> educational field while Wikiversity is not. These projects occupy different
> niches, and therefore there is not so much competition after all.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 6:42 AM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin(a)wikinewsie.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Why should Wikiversity or Wikispecies or any other WMF project have to
>> compete with another WMF project, with basically the same goals?
>>
>> I am all for free collaborative content, but not if it means WMF
>> projects have to compete against one another. Would that not defy the
>> meaning of collaborative? Why not take what WMF has already and make it
>> better. We know they have the capabilities to make new things like a
>> collaborative video program...so why not?
>>
>> Point is the projects are all supposed to be part of a community of
>> collaborators. We are supposed to be part of a foundation that supports
>> that. Not driving the communities apart.
>>
>> Jason Safoutin
>>
>>> I understood Erik was asked to join their advisory board since he was
>>> a Board of Trustees at WMF and both organizations were largely in a
>>> same mind (free content for educational purpose). I think Erik said
>>> something at the announcement of his appointment to Deputy ED but not
>>> dig the archive right now (the network is a bit slow for me now).
>>>
>>> Btw I have no reason for making a panic -- sorry but it was my first
>>> impression in this thread, so sorry if I just misunderstood your
>>> reaction --- even if WikiEducator was a competitor of Wikiversity. Is
>>> our world so small not as to allow two or more online educational
>>> projects mainly for adult or in an advanced level? In real life we
>>> have several high educational institutions. In several layers they
>>> compete each others but still there are also collaborations in many
>>> levels: both officially and informally they share lectures, books and
>>> other educational resources and do research jointly etc. Can it be
>>> this case or is there no such room for online projects at all?
>>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2008 10:21 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For a conflict of interest, interests must conflict. How do the
>>>> interests of Wikimedia and WikiEducator conflict? That isn't clear to
>>>> me. The goal is the same - the proliferation of easily accessible
>>>> knowledge. Ideally, they could exchange content so that neither has
>>>> anything the other lacks (depending on licenses, which I don't know
>>>> the details of). FWIW, Erik is the deputy executive director.
>>>>
>>>> Nathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2008 8:12 PM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin(a)wikinewsie.org>
>>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> If I have to be the first to say it, I will. I know some of these
>>>>>
>> links
>>
>>>>> have been passed around here before, but for reference I will ad them,
>>>>> and then some.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has become clear to me, at least a few things anyway. One bing that
>>>>> there is clearly a conflict of interest on Erik Moeller's part. He is
>>>>> currently on the advisory board for Wikieducator:
>>>>>
>>>>> * http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Advisory_Board
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "/WikiEducator's Interim International Advisory Board was assembled by
>>>>> project founder Wayne Mackintosh to serve as a means of involving the
>>>>> community until the project has grown large enough to elect a Board
>>>>> through democratic means. Once 2,500 users have joined the wiki,
>>>>> elections will be held to select a successor Board./", says the
>>>>>
>> website.
>>
>>>>> Not only that, but Kultra has some involvement with Wikieducator, and
>>>>>
>> if
>>
>>>>> I am not mistaken Wikieducator is slated to be on WMF servers:
>>>>>
>>>>> * _ Kaltura Collaborative Video Editing Extension Enabled:_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/345c056f83…
>>
>>>>> The way I see it, Wikieducator is the same thing that Wikiversity is.
>>>>> Wikieducator is not to compete with Wikiversity, it is a means to IMO
>>>>> eventually replace it. Don't believe me?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikieducator:
>>>>>
>>>>> * *planning* of education projects linked with the development of
>>>>> free content <http://freedomdefined.org/Definition>;
>>>>> * *development* of free content on Wikieducator
>>>>> <http://www.wikieducator.org/Content> for e-learning;
>>>>> * work on building *open education resources* (OERs) on *how* to
>>>>> create OERs.
>>>>> * networking on *funding proposals
>>>>> <http://www.wikieducator.org/Metawikieducator>* developed as
>>>>>
>> free
>>
>>>>> content.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikiversity: /*Wikiversity* is a community for the creation of
>>>>>
>> learning
>>
>>>>> activities and development of free learning materials. Students and
>>>>> teachers
>>>>> <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Wikiversity_teachers> are
>>>>> invited to join the project as collaborators in teaching, learning,
>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>> research. Wikiversity strives to be an open and vibrant community
>>>>>
>> where
>>
>>>>> you can explore and learn about your personal interests. Wikiversity
>>>>> hosts and develops free learning materials for all age groups. Please
>>>>> participate and help build collaborative learning projects and
>>>>> communities; at Wikiversity we learn by doing
>>>>> <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Education/Wikiversity_model>,
>>>>>
>> we
>>
>>>>> learn by editing./
>>>>>
>>>>> So...what is different about the two? Nothing...other than a few more
>>>>> bells and whistles.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all heard about the wonderful amazing and quite eye catiching, The
>>>>> Encyclopedia Of Life - A collaborative encyclopedia to contain the
>>>>> entire earth's species....I thought that's what Wikispecies is? Not to
>>>>> mention that Erik is on their Institutional Council, which he also
>>>>> represents the Wikimedia Foundation. Again not another competition,
>>>>>
>> but
>>
>>>>> if you have been to their website, you will see what I mean about
>>>>> "replacement".
>>>>>
>>>>> * http://www.eol.org/home.html
>>>>> * http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/05/09/encyclopedia-of-life/
>>>>> * http://www.eol.org/partners.html#p3
>>>>>
>>>>> So let cut to the chase. What is going on in WMF? Why is the Executive
>>>>> Director involved with projects that are clearly designed to either
>>>>> replace or out do WMF projects? Why is the WMF involved at all? And
>>>>>
>> why,
>>
>>>>> is the Board of Trustees, the group the communities elected, not
>>>>>
>> saying
>>
>>>>> anything? Whats going on and who is making these decisions?
>>>>>
>>>>> In all respects, we have to right to know at least some things. As it
>>>>> stands, Kaltura is directly endorsing the WMF on its front page:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/Main_Page
>>>>>
>>>>> "/As recently announced
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Invites_Users_to_Take_Part_in…
>>
>>> ,
>>>
>>>>> the Wikimedia Foundation and Kaltura have begun a process aimed at
>>>>> bringing rich-media collaboration to Wikipedia and other wiki
>>>>>
>> websites.
>>
>>>>> The vision of this project is to enable the Wikipedia community to
>>>>> further enhance and enrich Wikipedia articles with rich-media
>>>>>
>> content./"
>>
>>>>> They mention Wikipedia three times in just the first paragraph...
>>>>>
>>>>> So who is in charge now????????????
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason Safoutin
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 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
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 154
> *********************************************
>
>
>
In a message dated 1/22/2008 6:37:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
When a wiki failed we killed them.
and
. When a particular project does a different or a better job,
inside or outside the WMF framework, people will find it, recognise this.
GerardM
And if it doesn't can we kill them?
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:39:46 +0100
> From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820801220639s12cf73f9pc6d2231b6343d079(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> All WMF projects aim to provide information. They all do it in a slightly
> different way. The notion that one project should not and can not compete
> with another is false anyway. Both Wikipedia and Wikinews do news. Both
> Wikibooks and Wikiversity work on educational material Of relevance is the
> difference in emphasis. This is what makes projects valid in their own
> right.
>
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a news agency. Wikipedia should not be
doing news, but rather as a more recent post said, do it in the form of
encyclopedic rather than a news section.
H have been trying to get an explanation of why WP has news to begin
with. Again, we are NOT supposed to be competing with one another. We
are supposed to be collaborating. There is a huge difference. It took me
months and month just to advocate a link to Wikinews on the front page
news section on WP. So my notion is not false....Wiki*news* ->
Wiki*pedia*....
> With the notion that projects cannot compete, you effectively convict
> projects to stay in the same mold. When there are two groups with markedly
> different insights, one of these has to give up their ideas and would not be
> allowed to experiment with their notions of how things should be / can be
> done. This is evil.
>
Same mold: Well yes...Wikinews is news, Wikipedia is encyclopedia,
Commons is images...etc etc...and what would the mold be for WP and such
then? I am open to experiments, when it does not leave out
projects...intentionally. If not intentional, then stop making it look
like the projects are being replaced. Stop *forcing* competition with
our collaborators.
> In my opinion, there should be room for experiments and if we find that a
> new kid on the block does good. More power to him/her. The beneficiary of
> such experiments are the people that matter; the people we are providing
> information to.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
There is a difference between experiments, and shutting out projects.
WMF needs to help WMF projects *first and foremost*. And until WMF can
do that, then it really has no business venturing to create a
competition between projects.
Jason Safoutin (Dragon Fire1024)
In a message dated 1/22/2008 9:20:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
I saw a fair few (I have a Google Alert for "wikipedia" on news and
blogs) which said we were working on it with them (which we are) and
that WikiEducator was not a Wikimedia site (which I got into the press
release at the last moment). The coverage did IMO imply it was closer
than it is.
Yes it did, didn't it?
But as I noted in my message earlier today, web-based collaborative
video editing is a big and important idea, and the technical work is
non-trivial, so encouraging efforts to make a free software version
are arguably a reasonable thing to lend our good name to, even if it's
not likely to come to Wikimedia sites in the near or even medium
future. Kaltura seem non-evil to me so far, FWIW.
I don't think anyone is saying it is evil. And while I may agree that we
should be lending our good name, though I would probably start with an
established company like RedHat, which can be mutually advantageous. Startups are so
iffy ...
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 1/22/2008 7:47:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah. I'm personally inclined to shrug this off as run-of-the-mill
press crack-smoking (anyone who's ever spoken to the press about
anything ever will know what I mean), and clarify to enquirers one at
a time.
- d.
Yeah, I see what you mean. So, did any reporters get the facts right?
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kurt Leesmeister <danrike(a)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: Tokipona
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Thank you very much for the information. But I would like to say a few
words about it.
I can imagine that you didn't make the decision that the
tokipona-wikipedia should be closed or not even be opened. But I
disagree with Andrew Whitworth.
Constructed languages belong to the pool of languages summarized in
wikipedia. It is true that some languages might not be necessary but
who should decide this? Languages like volapük, esperanto or ido are
constructed languages and nobody can say that their importance is
limited to a few people. The volapük-wikipedia summarizes more than
100.000 articles, esperante nearly 95.000 articles, ido reached the
15.000 article-limit. Does this mean that a constructed language is
neglegable? I don't think so. Andrew Whitworth mentioned that a
language like tokipona doesn't help to improve communication between
people. Its true that there is nobody who exclusively speaks tokipona
but who does exclusevely speak esperanto or volapük? This is not only
limited to constructed languages? Who does exclusevely speak latin?
Presumably the antient Romans had been the last. Is this a reason why
a Latin wikipedia shouldn't exist? Fortunaletely this criterium wasn't
used.
Tokipona was constructed for one reason. It should be as simple as
possible. This should help even those people without skills for
learning languages to find a new medium to communicate with others. A
wikipedia in tokipona would be a great step in this direction.
The reason why there are wikipedias for constructed languages should
be the reason to open the tokipona-wikipedia. Equality for constructed
languages should be a principle that should be followed. John Lennons
"Give peace a chance" should be modified to "Give tokipona a chance"!
I can imagine that you can't decide whether a tokipona-wikipedia will
be reopended or not but I hope you can forward my mail to a forum that
can re-think the decision.
I will be pleased hearing from you.
Kurt
Although (like the others below suggest), the Tokipona wikis probably
aren't going to be re-opened, you can still contribute to the Tokipona
Wikia: < http://tokipona.wikia.com/wiki/lipu_lawa >.
On Jan 18, 2008 12:04 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2008 11:40 AM, Ian A Holton < poeloq(a)gmail.com > wrote:
> > As I wrote about yesterday on the WikiEN-l, is it really necessary to
> > have languages that are not primary languages of at least a decent sized
> > group of people. Toki Pona is a contructed language that isn't going to
> > enable more to people to edit or read Wikipedia.
>
> I agree with this. New language projects should be created as a way to
> faciliate the sharing of information. Small constructed languages
> represent little more then code or encryption, and those by definition
> are barriers to communications. It would be different if, for some
> people, Toki Pona was their natural, primary, or only spoken language.
> In that case, toki pona would be the only method of communication for
> this hypothetical group of people, and creating a project for them
> would help to facilitate the sharing of information.
>
> I see no benefit in creating a project which only a small group of
> people edit and nobody outside that group can read.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Why should Wikiversity or Wikispecies or any other WMF project have to
compete with another WMF project, with basically the same goals?
I am all for free collaborative content, but not if it means WMF
projects have to compete against one another. Would that not defy the
meaning of collaborative? Why not take what WMF has already and make it
better. We know they have the capabilities to make new things like a
collaborative video program...so why not?
Point is the projects are all supposed to be part of a community of
collaborators. We are supposed to be part of a foundation that supports
that. Not driving the communities apart.
Jason Safoutin
>
> I understood Erik was asked to join their advisory board since he was
> a Board of Trustees at WMF and both organizations were largely in a
> same mind (free content for educational purpose). I think Erik said
> something at the announcement of his appointment to Deputy ED but not
> dig the archive right now (the network is a bit slow for me now).
>
> Btw I have no reason for making a panic -- sorry but it was my first
> impression in this thread, so sorry if I just misunderstood your
> reaction --- even if WikiEducator was a competitor of Wikiversity. Is
> our world so small not as to allow two or more online educational
> projects mainly for adult or in an advanced level? In real life we
> have several high educational institutions. In several layers they
> compete each others but still there are also collaborations in many
> levels: both officially and informally they share lectures, books and
> other educational resources and do research jointly etc. Can it be
> this case or is there no such room for online projects at all?
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 10:21 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For a conflict of interest, interests must conflict. How do the
>> interests of Wikimedia and WikiEducator conflict? That isn't clear to
>> me. The goal is the same - the proliferation of easily accessible
>> knowledge. Ideally, they could exchange content so that neither has
>> anything the other lacks (depending on licenses, which I don't know
>> the details of). FWIW, Erik is the deputy executive director.
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2008 8:12 PM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>>
>>> If I have to be the first to say it, I will. I know some of these links
>>> have been passed around here before, but for reference I will ad them,
>>> and then some.
>>>
>>> It has become clear to me, at least a few things anyway. One bing that
>>> there is clearly a conflict of interest on Erik Moeller's part. He is
>>> currently on the advisory board for Wikieducator:
>>>
>>> * http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Advisory_Board
>>>
>>>
>>> "/WikiEducator's Interim International Advisory Board was assembled by
>>> project founder Wayne Mackintosh to serve as a means of involving the
>>> community until the project has grown large enough to elect a Board
>>> through democratic means. Once 2,500 users have joined the wiki,
>>> elections will be held to select a successor Board./", says the website.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but Kultra has some involvement with Wikieducator, and if
>>> I am not mistaken Wikieducator is slated to be on WMF servers:
>>>
>>> * _ Kaltura Collaborative Video Editing Extension Enabled:_
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/345c056f83…
>>>
>>>
>>> The way I see it, Wikieducator is the same thing that Wikiversity is.
>>> Wikieducator is not to compete with Wikiversity, it is a means to IMO
>>> eventually replace it. Don't believe me?
>>>
>>> Wikieducator:
>>>
>>> * *planning* of education projects linked with the development of
>>> free content <http://freedomdefined.org/Definition>;
>>> * *development* of free content on Wikieducator
>>> <http://www.wikieducator.org/Content> for e-learning;
>>> * work on building *open education resources* (OERs) on *how* to
>>> create OERs.
>>> * networking on *funding proposals
>>> <http://www.wikieducator.org/Metawikieducator>* developed as free
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Wikiversity: /*Wikiversity* is a community for the creation of learning
>>> activities and development of free learning materials. Students and
>>> teachers
>>> <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Wikiversity_teachers> are
>>> invited to join the project as collaborators in teaching, learning, and
>>> research. Wikiversity strives to be an open and vibrant community where
>>> you can explore and learn about your personal interests. Wikiversity
>>> hosts and develops free learning materials for all age groups. Please
>>> participate and help build collaborative learning projects and
>>> communities; at Wikiversity we learn by doing
>>> <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Education/Wikiversity_model>, we
>>> learn by editing./
>>>
>>> So...what is different about the two? Nothing...other than a few more
>>> bells and whistles.
>>>
>>> We all heard about the wonderful amazing and quite eye catiching, The
>>> Encyclopedia Of Life - A collaborative encyclopedia to contain the
>>> entire earth's species....I thought that's what Wikispecies is? Not to
>>> mention that Erik is on their Institutional Council, which he also
>>> represents the Wikimedia Foundation. Again not another competition, but
>>> if you have been to their website, you will see what I mean about
>>> "replacement".
>>>
>>> * http://www.eol.org/home.html
>>> * http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/05/09/encyclopedia-of-life/
>>> * http://www.eol.org/partners.html#p3
>>>
>>> So let cut to the chase. What is going on in WMF? Why is the Executive
>>> Director involved with projects that are clearly designed to either
>>> replace or out do WMF projects? Why is the WMF involved at all? And why,
>>> is the Board of Trustees, the group the communities elected, not saying
>>> anything? Whats going on and who is making these decisions?
>>>
>>> In all respects, we have to right to know at least some things. As it
>>> stands, Kaltura is directly endorsing the WMF on its front page:
>>>
>>> http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/Main_Page
>>>
>>> "/As recently announced
>>> <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Invites_Users_to_Take_Part_in…>,
>>> the Wikimedia Foundation and Kaltura have begun a process aimed at
>>> bringing rich-media collaboration to Wikipedia and other wiki websites.
>>> The vision of this project is to enable the Wikipedia community to
>>> further enhance and enrich Wikipedia articles with rich-media content./"
>>>
>>> They mention Wikipedia three times in just the first paragraph...
>>>
>>> So who is in charge now????????????
>>>
>>> Jason Safoutin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
In a message dated 1/22/2008 6:54:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
I'm sorta wishing the press releases hadn't given the news sites the
impression that this was rolling out on Wikipedia in the near or even
middle future - as Brion said, it's a great idea but will need to be
free all the way down. But it does sound like you're onto a big and
valuable idea here.
- d.
David,
I think you hit the nail on the head here. If I understand Brion correctly,
implementation is a long way off, and there is no favoring of Kaltura over
other applications. And yet, a quick search of Google for the terms "Wikipeia"
and "Kaltura" shows something very different.
I get:
1. Kaltura introduces video mashups to Wikipedia (makes it sound like a fait
accompli)
2. Kaltura partners to add crowdsource video to Wikipedia (ditto)
3. Wikipedia invites users to take part in open collaborative … (Wikipedia
encourages it)
4. Wikipedia article on Kaltura (with a sublink to a deletion debate)
5. Wikipedia to get videos via Kaltura (another fait accompli)
6. Wikipedia to get its video on NewTeeVee (again)
7. Kaltura introduces video mashups to Wikipedia (they did?)
8. Wikipedia to get videos via Kaltura (repeat of 5)
9. Also check out how Kaltura's software works with the MediaWiki
software.(it does?)
And that is just the first page of over 20,000 hits.
Now, what Brion explains is far more nuanced and reasonable. The problem is
that the only place that his explanation appears is on some WMF mailing list.
It seems that the press is taking this as a done deal that is already
implemented or that its implementation is just around the corner. And face it: an
abundance of quick soundbytes will always win out.
Of course, this is incredibly valuable for Kaltura--investors see it and
come running. After all, even the Wikipedia article is quoting these sources.
But it is not accurate.
Finally, a word about the Wikipedia article itself, or more precisely, its
image (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kaltura_editor.jpg_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kaltura_editor.jpg) ). Note the URL in the image itself—it
is a Wikipedia URL, not a Kaltura URL. Also, there is no author information
but it is released under a CC license. I am curious. Does that mean that I
can trim all the Kaltura fluff and just keep the whale image, as long as I
attribute it to an unknown author?
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
