Wikimedia-l October 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

93 participants
74 discussions

[Foundation-l] Twin Chapters / Sister Chapters
by Pharos 29 Oct '08

29 Oct '08

It occurs to me that a good way to share experiences among chapters community-to-community might be though a semi-formal "twin chapters" / "sister chapters" program, analogous to the "twin towns" / "sister cities" programs among world urban centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_twinning There appears to me to be a benefit to a deep conversation between two chapters that can't be fully reached by a broader, shallower conversation among all chapters simultaneously (such as takes place in meta). Of course, the broader conversation still has a very important place. It would be great if we could boost the organization of more Wikipedia Academy-type events in this way, for example, where one chapter can copy another's successes and learn from its experiences. Who wants to join up? As an organizer of the as-yet-unofficial Wikimedia New York City, I'd look forward to seeing chapter-to-chapter contacts blossom in this way, and hope others would wish to join us in conversation. Thanks, Pharos

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 55, Issue 62
by Mike.lifeguard 29 Oct '08

29 Oct '08

Delphine wrote: >1) The slogan "Wikipedia is a non-profit" sounds weird to me... Well, Wikipedia itself isn't a nonprofit, the Foundation is. But "is nonprofit" and "is a nonprofit" are both acceptable in English (1st is an adjective, 2nd is a noun) so I don't see an issue with those words. >2) While I understand the necessity and the advantages of pushing >Wikipedia over the other projects in terms of "return on investment", >I really think it would make sense to find a slightly different >wording/message for the notices on other projects. It doesn't mean >that we shouldn't use Wikipedia's name, but if the Foundation is ever >hoping to push other Wikimedia projects forward, it should probably >start to include them more prominently in its own communications to >start with. I agree - Wikipedia has brand recognition, but the other projects need to develop some - that means co-branding with Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation. This is one prominent example of an area where Wikipedia's sister projects are notably absent. We should try to emphasize on Wikipedia's notices that donations will help Wikipedia and these other cool things. On other projects, something like "Wikibooks, like Wikipedia, is a project of the WMF, and we need money" might make more sense. I don't know whether we can currently do different notices on different projects, but I think it will be very strange to have a "Wikipedia needs money" at the top of a Wikibooks page. For projects struggling to gain their own notoriety, some support from the Foundation would be nice. -Mike -- Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm

6 5

[Foundation-l] Fundraising as an important part of spreading your vision
by David Gerard 29 Oct '08

29 Oct '08

Spotted by Brianna. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/10/in-defense-of-r.html Precis: fundraising shouldn't be regarded as an icky job that distracts from your mission. Instead, it's an important part of spreading your vision. - d.

3 3

[Foundation-l] Group for analyzing problems
by Milos Rancic 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

I made a page at Meta [1] and its initial content is below the message. For the introduction into the issue, see [2]. Here are a couple of points about this approach: - The project has no explicit power, its task is to gather, categorize and analyze problems, as well as to suggest possible solutions. - All previous attempts to make a group which would deal with such issues were not passed. I think that this group has potential to exist exactly because it doesn't have any power, while it has a lot of tasks to do. - I understand that we need to have a number of persons highly motivated to work on that: there are no prises, there is not explicit authority. Inputs from all Wikimedians at all phases of work are welcome. And, at the end, please move discussion to wikimediameta list because this list was introduced to cover community issues. For those who don't know where to sign, go at the page [3]. [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Problems [2] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-October/046768.html [3] - https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l * * * This page is about "the rest" of the problems related to [[Wikimedia community]], [[Wikimedia projects]], [[WMF]] and [[Chapters]]. When an issue comes to this place, it should mean that there is no other place at all over [[Wikimedia]] where it may be solved. This place is built to ''try'' to solve such problems, while it doesn't have power ''per se'' to implement it. The main product of this place is a suggestion what should be done at various levels toward the problem solution. '''The project is still in development and you shouldn't use it for particular problems! However, all Wikimedians are welcome to participate in the project creation process.''' == How to use this project == * If you think, let's say, that some project should be closed, the right place for such proposal is the page [[Proposals for closing projects]]. The process there is well established and there is no need for talking about that at some other place. If you want to change the process because you think that something with that process is not going well, the right place for discussing this issue is [[Wikimedia Forum]]. And just if you tried both steps and you still think that something is wrong there, you should come here and explain the problem. * If you have some other problem in which wider community should be introduced, the right place for asking the community is the page [[Requests for comments]]. However, if the problem was not solved there, you should come here and explain it. * This project is about '''all''' aspects of Wikimedia community, Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia Foundation and Chapters issues. This means that you may present here any kind of Wikimedia-related problem; not just problems related to the projects. Of course, you should be sure that you tried to solve your problem at other possible ways. If you are unsure, you may ask here for advice. * ... == Meta tasks == ''This is the list of the tasks which should be done to make and keep the project functional.'' === Initial tasks === * List as many as possible existing not solved, usually systematic problems, make the initial analysis and categorize them. The main page for the list is [[/List of problems]] * Make supporting pages for adding problems. * Announce that this project is functional. === Permanent tasks === * Handle problems, analyze them, categorize them, try to solve them. * Talk with Wikimedian communities around projects, WMF and chapters about issues relevant to them and educated interested Wikimedians how to increase their participation. * Write documentation. * Help in creation of the new Wikimedia institutions. * Analyze periodically developments of Wikimedian community, suggest global actions and report it to the community. == Publicity of work == This project is public. As it handles public or very general problems, there is no need for private communication channels, except personal communication. Wikimedians interested in helping others may talk personally with those who need help with the goal to find the right wording for expressing sensitive data here. Solutions at this place are general, while sensitive data should be handled by particular WMF and community bodies. The working list for this project is [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l wikimediameta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org]. == Members == Anyone is able to participate in the process on this project. However, as the project has to make some conclusions and suggestions to the wider community, membership should be defined. Up to the end of November 2008 membership to the project is open to all Wikimedians which have account on Meta at least for the last 6 months with the existing user page prior to the moment of publishing this document. After the end of November 2008, new members may be accepted according to the group rules. Default majority needed for group decision is 80%. If the group doesn't have consensus about conclusions or there are significant different views, all of them should be included into the final document. Without prior information that member wouldn't be able to participate for some specific time, after inactivity for more than three months member will be removed from the list; after which they should pass the same process for becoming a member. === List of members === * [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] [[Category:Collaboration]]

1 0

[Foundation-l] New Announce mailing list: Chapters reports
by Delphine Ménard 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

Hi, A new mailing list, called chapters-reports_[at]_lists.wikimedia.org has been created. It is meant to be an announce-only mailing list, for those who wish to keep in touch with what the chapters around the world are doing. It will receive regular updates from various chapters about their activities. The reason for an announce-only mailing list is that many people have asked for a "quiet" list, where things would not get burried by answers and comments but would allow them to keep in touch with the activities of chapters. You can subscribe by visiting the following page: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/chapters-reports It's going to be a relatively low-traffic list (about maybe 20 mails/month). Cheers, Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

1 0

[Foundation-l] Designs and other fundraiser updates
by Erik Moeller 27 Oct '08

27 Oct '08

Those of you checking Meta may have noticed that there are a few designs uploaded for feedback from translators: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/benefactors With the exception of the usual copyrights and trademarks on Wikimedia logos & marks, these designs are CC-BY-SA. They are still prototypes that we are hoping to implement using the existing skin/translation system on wikimediafoundation.org. Translation has also begun on the key messages of the campaign -- thanks to everyone who is helping. Rand Montoya is managing the fundraiser this year, and will post more detailed updates as things progress. Please do feel free to add first feedback to the above pages. We're currently planning to launch the fundraiser in early November, and it will run until late January. The "Ask" of the fundraiser will be a campaign goal of $6M, which matches the budgeted expenses for the current fiscal year. It does not include the budgeted contingency, which we hope to meet through other revenue streams (e.g. business development). We will count gifts received or committed in this fiscal year prior to the launch of the fundraiser as "leadership gifts". That means that the fundraising thermometer will literally be filled up (at current count by about $2M), and we hope to raise the remaining difference. We will also count any major gifts received during the fundraising period against the thermometer. So, for campaign purposes, we will not distinguish between small gifts and major gifts. We may special case any significantly restricted grants received during the time period, depending on the nature of the grant. Some of the other important changes this year: * The fundraiser is supported by our brand-spanking new open source donation database, CiviCRM. We are also setting up the CiviMail component to auto-confirm donations with an e-mail "Thank you" and to email past and future donors. * We have developed a fundraising agreement for chapters, which commits us to mutual reporting obligations and commits chapters to invest 50% of revenue from the online fundraiser in activities agreed upon with WMF (e.g. hiring a developer, buying a server, obtaining a legal study, sending us money). * We are implementing a new version of the CentralNotice campaign management system that supports scheduling & use of different banners. We are also hoping to have tracking of where donors are coming from in place (possibly not quite at launch) to do proper A/B testing on a number of designs. * As you can see on the above link, we'll have a bunch of sitenotices ready to go, and will develop further variants and iterations during the fundraiser. Other interesting updates (blog, quotes, etc.) are hoped for and planned. Hopefully basic live reporting will be in place from the start. * We'll have neat banners & buttons for blogs ready to go, and we'll encourage people to remix them. * Jay & Frank are working on outreach and messaging. For example, we hope to have some radio public service announcements this year, and Frank is planning an international outreach event to support the fundraiser. * We will have continued major gifts solicitation, now with support of Rebecca Handler, Head of Major Gifts. Sara Crouse is actively managing relationships with foundations and ongoing grants development. There will be no scrolling marquees this year, no third party logos in the sitenotice, and the notice will continue to be collapsible for signed in users. There will, as always, be a detailed Q&A, a draft version of which we'll post publicly later this week. :-) More soon, Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

8 12

[Foundation-l] Wikimedia announcements in various sizes
by Ziko van Dijk 27 Oct '08

27 Oct '08

When translating the fundraiser 2008 announcement, I had again the impression that Wikimedia announcements are suitable for the context of English language, maybe a handful of other languages and their Wikipedia communities, but not for lesser resourced languages like Latin, Swahili or Dutch Low Saxon. First, it is often a large amount of text that needs hours or longer to translate. The workforce of small Wikipedia communities is limited, and the result is often that announcements are not translated and distributed at all. It is also a problem that e.g. the fundraising message referred to the Annual Report of WMF, which exists only in English or a limited number of languages. Second, the contenct of the announcements is directed to speakers of a language which is the main language of thoses speakers, or a language taught at ordinary schools and universities etc. Third, the Wikipedia/Wikimedia structure can differ, like the existence and strengh of a Wikimedia chapter. It might be considerable to have in future Wikimedia announcements in various sizes, like L, M and S. Then, a Wikipedia language edition community can choose which one to adopt. Ziko van Dijk -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] [offtopic] Lempel-Ziv Was: Freedom, standards, and file formats
by Geoffrey Plourde 25 Oct '08

25 Oct '08

What about a tabulator? ________________________________ From: Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:01:26 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [offtopic] Lempel-Ziv Was: Freedom, standards, and file formats On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:19:05PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > It's true that math is not itself patentable in the US. The way > software patents are constructed is by saying: "We claim a computer > system (a) consisting of transistors and all the usual computer > trappings, which is loaded with software (b), which tranforms the > computer into a device for performing computation (c; described in > great detail), so that the resulting system a+b+c, is useful for > performing task X", and that *is* patentable in the US, the patents > usually go on to describe every application that they can think of, as > well as the most obvious permutations of a,b, and c. Would the patent still apply if I used a babbage difference engine, or an optical computer? My question is really: how specific are they in describing a computer? -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 0

[Foundation-l] [offtopic] Lempel-Ziv Was: Freedom, standards, and file formats
by Gregory Maxwell 25 Oct '08

25 Oct '08

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am aware that I am dating myself there. > > As I recall it, (and my recollection is as ever fallible) > there was a claim by some that a compression format > was protected. And it was upheld. But the mathematical > algorithm wasn't protected, so a totally equivalent > format was created (and if I recall improved upon) later, > and the original claimants for protection got their butts > spanked, even though their claim held. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compress LZW was patented. It was replaced, but not by a mathmatically equivalent alternative, but instead by a superior non-identical alternative. This is why .tar.gz files are common today, but tar.Z files are usually not found. (Likewise gif -> png, but the story was a bit different since it wasn't realized that GIF had patent problems until very late, and it was possible to make non-infringing GIFs by not applying the compression) It's true that math is not itself patentable in the US. The way software patents are constructed is by saying: "We claim a computer system (a) consisting of transistors and all the usual computer trappings, which is loaded with software (b), which tranforms the computer into a device for performing computation (c; described in great detail), so that the resulting system a+b+c, is useful for performing task X", and that *is* patentable in the US, the patents usually go on to describe every application that they can think of, as well as the most obvious permutations of a,b, and c. This does have the effect of source code itself not infringing, but that the infringement begins as soon as the source is combined with a computer that can run it. The distinction is interesting to pedants and lawyers, but the end result is nearly the same as if the algorithm were patented. There are some cases where someone patents a system using algorithm X and it's possible to find some isomorphic Y which does different computation but gets the same result without infringing on the patent, but LZW was not one of those cases. I get the impression that such examples are fairly uncommon.

2 1

[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?
by Erik Moeller 24 Oct '08

24 Oct '08

The GFDL has specific attribution requirements that were designed for software manuals. What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very likely to? I would like to start a broad initial discussion on this topic; it's likely that the issue will need to be raised more specifically in the context of possible modifications to the GFDL or a migration to CC-BY-SA. The relevant GFDL clause states: "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." Most people have chosen to ignore the "principal authors" requirement and to try to attribute every author instead because there's no obvious way to determine who the principal authors are. I remember a few years back that Anthony tried a completely different approach, where he created a full copy of Wikipedia (under the assumption that it's a single GFDL work) and attributed it to five people on the frontpage. Anthony, please correct me if my recollection is incorrect. The community process that has developed with regard to GFDL compliance on the web has generally tacitly favored a link to the article and to its history as proper credit. But, for printed books, publishers have generally wanted to be more in compliance with the letter of the license. So, the Bertelsmann "Wikipedia in one volume" includes a looong list of authors in a very tiny font. Is that practical? How about Wikipedia articles on passenger information systems (screens on subways, airplanes)? How about small booklets where there isn't a lot of room for licensing information? Should a good license for wikis make a distinction between print and online uses? I haven't heard anyone argue strongly for full inclusion of the _license text_. But I'd like to hear opinions on the inclusion of username lists. My personal preference would be a system where we have a special "credits" URL for each article, something like http://en.wikipedia.org/credits/World_War_II which would list authors and also provide full licensing information for all media files. If we had a specific collection of articles, the system could support this using collection IDs: http://en.wikipedia.org/collection_credits/Bertelsmann_One_Volume_Encyclope… (These URLs are completely made up and have no basis in reality.) The advantage that I see of such an approach is that it would allow us to standardize and continually refine the way we display authorship information, and benefit the free sharing of content with a very lightweight process. The disadvantage (if it is perceived as such) is that if we would officially recommend such attribution in printed books, individual contributors would be less likely to see their username in print. But we might see more print uses because it would make the attribution more manageable. It's also conceivable to require full author attribution for printed collections of a certain length or printed in certain quantity. (The GFDL has "in quantity" rules, but they do not seem to apply in any way to the authorship information.) Aside from what the legal implications of any given approach are, the first question I think that needs to be answered is what's desirable. Thoughts? -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

17 85

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l October 2008