> The argument for this project is that in Transnistria
> there are people who still use Cyrillic to write their language.
Then please rename mo. to another thing, MO means MOLDOVAN, and in MOLDOVA
we write OUR language with LATIN letters.
I don't really care what the transnistrian(russian) separatist criminals are
doing there.
All I want is to NOT name the CYRILLIC garbage with OUR NAME !
> there are people who still use Cyrillic to write their language. For your
> information, ISO has recently decided that Moldovan is no longer
considered
> to be a separate language, it is considered to be Romanian.
That's good, the only thing I don't understand why mo.wikipedia.org is still
here.
Make the transnistrian language in whatever scripting you want and keep it
for transnistrian(russian) separatists.
But please leave alone our language name, (I repeat) it's with latin
letters.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The Moldovan Wikipedia is indeed in Cyrillic. This project has been locked
> after a big fight. The argument for this project is that in Transnistria
> there are people who still use Cyrillic to write their language. For your
> information, ISO has recently decided that Moldovan is no longer considered
> to be a separate language, it is considered to be Romanian.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Cetateanu Moldovanu <
> cetateanumd(a)gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm a citizen of Republic of Moldova and I want to inform you
> > that in our country everyone is writing Moldovan language with latin
> > letters.
> >
> > When we were under soviet union occupation, they tryed to russificate us
> > and forced to have our language written with cyrilic.
> >
> > In 1991, after getting the freedom to choose, we choose our language to
> be
> > written with latin letters, as we did before russians conquest us
> (without
> > ask the people) and divided from Romania (our mother land).
> >
> > Thereby, as a free moldovan speaking man, I'm asking you to remove
> > mo.wikipedia.org (witch is in cyrillic and is very offensive for us) and
> > respect our choice as a independent nation or to make it with latin
> > letters.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Here are some areas on the English Wikipedia where the donation drive and
banner have been discussed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Bring_Back_Hide_Fun…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project._Donate_Now_.3E.3E.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F
It has also been discussed a few times on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel.
I don't know if other projects have had similar reactions, but I do know
that some projects have disabled the banner. It was for a time not available
on the Spanish Wikipedia, and remains unavailable (last I checked) at the
Russian Wikibooks. A quick survey of interwiki links on the en.wp Barack
Obama page suggests that most or all Wikipedia projects are displaying the
banner now.
My observation is that the comments have been almost universally negative,
and in fact a number of people - including long time administrators and
previous donors - have said that this year they will not be donating at all.
Reasons have included the banner itself, a sense that the foundation does
not use its money appropriately, or concerns related to allegations made by
Danny Wool last spring.
I don't remember this sort of strong negative reaction before - is it
expected? Are we seeing something a little different this year in terms of
reaction? Has it translated into any change in the pace of donations?
Nathan
After 6 days, the fund drive appears to have taken $450,000 (not
counting the $1.9M of that was in the counter before the drive
started).
Comparing that total to the way that previous drives have evolved, I'd
guesstimate that after 60 days the current drive will have generated
$2.9 +/- 0.9M in community donations, not counting any additional
major donor contributions that the WMF may arrange during that time.
Based on the figures in the annual report, $2.9M would appear to
exceed expectations for community giving (currently stated as $3M for
the current fiscal year, and assuming that at least $1M in community
giving occurs as donations during non-fundraiser months).
-Robert Rohde
Why does the MWF want to move to CC-by-sa ? I really don't understand.
What problem do you want to solve ? As I see it, trying to switch texts to
CC-by-sa will cause more problems than it could ever resolve. But it just
my opinion.
However I must say I'm partial. I dislike CC because I think it brings so
many confusion on what is a free license. I would be sad if MWF projects
would switch to a CC license.
Also I don't understand why the FSF go this way. If they want people to
confuse with the word "free", IMO, that the way to go.
Personally, I prefer the FAL. I used to use CC-by-sa-nc, when I didn't
understand the free culture movement, don't believe I have always thought
like I do today. I talked a lot here and there before I understood how bad
CC was for the free culture movement.
There are so many people out there which think CC is a license and display
"This work is under Creative Commons". And even when they pick a CC, how
many read the full text ? The FAL seems much human readable to me. I would
be sad if the MWF would switch to CC-by-sa, because it would mean
propagate this misunderstanding of the free culture.
However, that's not all the point. Probably as I prefer the FAL I would
feel less concerned, but still there would be this compatibilities issues.
If compatibility isn't bilateral, as I see it, this is just a one way to a
licenses compatibility nightmare.
Note that works are in progress to make bilaterally compatible the free
art license 1.3 and CC-by-sa 2.0-fr, if I well remember. Oh, by the way,
what about the CC-by-sa miscellaneous language en number versions
compatibility ?
To my mind, this is not a good idea, won't bring anything good and is a
waste of time. But of course, I could be wrong, and you could me explain
why and what I missed/misunderstood.
With all my apologies for my probably not so great English,
Mathieu Stumpf.
--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mikael Andersson <mikeswede(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Subject: An idea of free innovation
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I wonder if it would be possible to have
a innovation wiki similar
to Bluetooth SIG Group.
Patents lock in ideas for decades and make
products more expensive.
So my idea is that why not have a system for
innovations in Information technologies and design
in that field similar to The Bluetooth SIG Group have?
All members of Bluetooth SIG Group are not allowed
to do patents of their applications of the Bluetooth standard.
What I mean is a similar system where companies can find
ideas but they are not allowed to make patents of the ideas they would
find on innovation wiki.
The progress in Information Tech is so rapid but patents lock
in more ideas and development which is bad for making ideas
to products that could be cheaper without the patent system.
So can this be something for wikipedia foundation?
Sincerely
Mikael Andersson
in Gothenburg, Sweden
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com
It was pointed out to me that my bit in this thread was quoted out of
context on a website called valleywag. It doesn't seem like that particular
publication is likely to have a sterling reputation for accuracy, but my
apologies to the folks whose good work was denigrated none the less.
Nathan
Dear folks,
I'm going to try to develop an FAQ regarding the latest developments
on the GFDL-Creative Commons harmonization project. What I'd like
from you is suggestions about what kinds of questions need to be
answered for people who are planning to vote on the license-migration
issue. (Then I'll try to craft answers to them -- with the help of
other folks of course.) I'm not interested only in the questions that
you may feel haven't been answered yet, but also in questions that you
do have answers to, but think other people will be curious about as
well.
Please feel free to send responses to me via this list (your submitted
questions may inspire other people to write some) or (if you like) to
me via private e-mail.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
Gregory Maxwell writes:
> Hm? Every previous one has had strongly negative reactions from some
> contributors.
>
> (I do not know for sure if this is better or worse but, for example,
> to me it appears appears far less significant at this point compared
> to the reaction at the time of the virgin unite thank-you.)
>
> The general public is already banner-blind. I'm not aware of any
> significant negative response from the general public to any of these
> fundraisers.
My take is the same as Greg's, but let me add a little more. First,
it's always the case that there's a negative reaction to anything
instantiated as a banner. That's a given, like the tides. Second, the
thing to remember about the negative reactions you see is that there's
no reason to believe that they are representative of *general*
reaction, since they are statistically nonrandom (not least because
the impulse to offer criticism is greater than the impulse to offer
praise, and much greater than the impulse to offer the sentiment "I am
not bothered by this"). Third, the evidence we have suggests that we
are doing rather better on fundraising this year than last year.
This doesn't mean criticism should be ignored (and, believe me, it
isn't). But the sky isn't falling, and in fact things generally seem
to be going well in comparison to last year.
--Mike