Wikimedia-l April 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

132 participants
229 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
by Marcos Cramer 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

I think that in the case of ancient languages, which no longer have native speakers, we should have the following two criteria additionally to the criterion of an active test project: * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original) * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities. Gerard's main argument against ancient languages has been the following: "When you insist on reviving a language, it is not the language it used to be." In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply. Ancient Greek (which started this discussion) is still used for publishing new works, for example the translation of Harry Potter into Ancient Greek. If the language subcomittee now rejects the proposal for Ancient Greek, this is clearly based on a non-neutral point of view. The proposal is not trying to "revive" Ancient Greek - written Ancient Greek probably has never been dead, or if yes, it has already been successfully revived outside of Wikipedia. Once the two criteria mentioned above are added for the case of ancient languages, the word "native", which is clearly out of place there, can be dropped from the language proposal policy. I hope that my arguments will be considered by the language subcommittee. Marcos -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx

2 1

[Foundation-l] Update on the process of new projects / new languages
by Gerard Meijssen 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

Hoi, Today I have had the pleasure of indicating that two request for new Wikis are "eligible". They are both Wikiversities, one in Finnish and one in Hungarian. Given the rules for new projects, they are clearly eligible and I was pleased to find that both languages had most of the localisation already been done. It is a pleasure because it means that all the projects in these languages benefit from the work done. What I find really interesting is that three academic institutions are going to be involved in the Finnish Wikiversity. This gives on the face of it the project a flying start. :) It is also something quite special to have organisations involved in WMF projects. At the bottom of the request for new languages page, you find the projects that are "closed". This means that they are either rejected or approved or created. Closed is very much seen from the perspective of the language committee as for the projects themselves it very much starts when the projects are created. The problem I want to share with you is that for proper closure, approved projects have to be created. For the language committee we are about to consider again what projects may be given approval. It is important for the health of this process that once a project is approved by the board it is created, my question is what more can we do to ensure that the process is completed in a timely fashion? Thanks, GerardM http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Hunga… http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Finni… http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Recently_closed

5 5

[Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent
by Erik Moeller 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

The folks at Creative Commons have posted a draft statement of intent regarding the CC-BY-SA license: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Draft_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent I've just read through it, and I'm really, really happy. Through this statement, CC has taken a first stab at defining in detail their intentions as stewards of the license. This is key to building trust with the Wikimedia community and other stakeholders in the free culture movement. The statement of intent clarifies a number of key points, including a commitment to keep the license in compliance with the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and a strong promise to only broaden, but not narrow the definition of what constitutes an adaptation under the terms of the license. We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.) You can post comments regarding the draft on the wiki talk page, or on the cc-licenses mailing list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses This is a really important development, and I hope that everyone who cares about the future of free culture licenses will get involved in these conversations. :-) My congratulations go to Creative Commons for taking this initiative. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

16 50

Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
by Crazy Lover 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

----- Original Message ---- From: Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 10:01:31 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages? I noticed that the present discussion started as an answer to the rejection of the ancient greek wikipedia. and i haven't seen a hard defence like this project. i think is due to the ancient greek is always a special case. as the quote of Edward Sapir found in the classical language article of wikipedia; the ancient greek is with latin, classical chinese, arabic and sanskrit is the foundation of all the culture of the whole world, and the modern world refers to them, all the time. I ask to the subcommitte: if the discussion provide good reason to the project of ancient language. it's possible a reconsideration of the rejection of ancient greek Wikipedia, and others projects of ancient language like classical japanese or ottomanic turkish that were proposed, too?. J. case _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
by Crazy Lover 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

----- Original Message ---- From: Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 4:50:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages? <<< ----- Original Message ---- From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 3:17:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages? On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: For Latin, it is obvious. The latest Roman Missal was published in 2002. If you can argue it is not so much different from the second latest one, it had been published in 1962. Reflecting the so-called 2nd Vatican Counsil and its reformation, 1962 version, or Novus Ordo is very known of its differences from the earlier versions. Or we can refer to CCC or several motu proprios which the Vatican has issued. On the other hand, Coptic Church doesn't seem to be enthusiastic to issue their documents in Coptic. As for the Orthodox, I don't know any church in the Slavic tradition using Church Slavic as their document language, while still today it is the language of liturgy and the Scrupture and many prayers, and Churches in Greek tradition don't use Attic dialect as far as I know. There is a good reason Latin learners can be allowed to entertain their linguistic ability on this project, I think. Anyway, even in a narrow region, it is still used and viable to carry ideas. >>> in fact, the language of work of the greek ortodoxox is the same of the new testament, the Koine dialectos. it is not exactly attic greek, but is still ancient greek. it is still more alive that many think. and it continued creating new vocabulary of modern things and concepts that replace the "barbarian" words. although many westerns bent to kill it. A curiosity. harry potter is translated in ancient greek. with the collection is going to be translated ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

1 0

[Foundation-l] VC, community and changing WMF's bylaws
by Milos Rancic 05 Apr '08

05 Apr '08

I realized now that approving changes of WMF's bylaws should be solved out of VC. If the best option is to ask the community (which that part of the resolution for VC proposes), then I think that the best idea is to ask the community directly. As the same mechanism would be used as for electing boards members, I think that there shouldn't be an big changes in the legal sense.

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal sent to the Board
by Mike Godwin 04 Apr '08

04 Apr '08

Ray writes: > I very seriously doubt if anyone has done this. The emphasis thus > far > has been on bootstrapping a group that could deal with the complex > issues surrounding the operation of a Volunteer Council; the legal > environment would be one of those issues. For the Provisional Council > to function it's not really necessary since it has no real power > itself. That's why I focused on the Volunteer Council aspect of the resolution, because, even though the Provisional Council supposedly has no power in itself, it will have been charged by the Board to create a Volunteer Council that does. To take only one example, consider this provision of the proposal: "3) Approving changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation." That's a significant structural change, and needs to be legally researched. And it's clear that the PC's focus is to create a permanent change in this provision: "On receipt of the said report the Board shall take such steps as it deems necessary to confirm and empower the Volunteer Council, and provide for a transition of operations from the Provisional Volunteer Council." So it's clear that the Volunteer Council is to be "empowered" in a permanent way that will affect corporate governance, and there will be a "transition of operations," which surely wouldn't be required if the "operations" weren't, uh, operationally important (i.e., "real power). My understanding of what is planned is based on a line-by-line reading of the Volunteer Council proposal in its entirety, which the Board is being asked to approve. > I don't think you're missing anything. My own personal preference > for > two-tier governance was expressed when incorporating WMF was still in > the planning stage, but I would hesitate to push my own vision of how > this might work. At this stage all we have is an assortment of > individual visions. That may be the case, but I've seen what I think is the only actual draft proposed resolution, and I know from experience that when there's only one draft proposal, and a group gets together to discuss one draft, some version of the draft is what's most likely to be approved. > I don't think that you can expect a coherent group > vision of governance until the Provisional Council has had an > opportunity to synthesize a common position of its members. For now I > view change in corporate structure as no more than one possibility > among > many. Is everyone already agreed that the lack of "a coherent group vision of governance" is the problem? The reason I ask is, I think that if the problem to be addressed is how to institutionalize community feedback and creative input, that's a problem that can be solved apart from formal changes in governance. Similarly, if the problem is that the Board needs more professional expertise to draw upon, that's a separate problem that also can be solved in ways that don't require governance changes. But right now the primary focus -- based on the language of the proposal itself -- seems to be on "change in corporate structure," even though, as you correctly note, it is "no more than one possibility among many." --Mike

9 12

Re: [Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution
by Geoffrey Plourde 03 Apr '08

03 Apr '08

Seems acceptable. ----- Original Message ---- From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:19:28 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution Sounds nice. Not aggressive but giving a framework for the forming working group. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Given some of the concerns that have been raised, I'd like to propose > an alternative resolution for consideration. > > "The Board of Trustees, by the passage of this resolution, endorses > the creation of a committee of community members to provide guidance > on the issue of a Volunteer Council. > > The committee is charged by the Board to consider and report on > the following points: > > * Determine if there are needs in the community that necessitate > the creation of the Volunteer Council or similar body and identify these > needs specifically > * The role of the body in addressing the identified needs > * The structure and role of the Volunteer Council within the Wikimedia > Foundation > * How the Council should be convened, and what mechanism should > be created for its dissolution if any > * Other issues important to the creation and operation of the Volunteer > Council as identified by the committee > > The committee on the Volunteer Council will consist of volunteers > selected by the committee facilitator - identified by the Board as > Lodewijk Gelauff. Reports on the activity and progress of the > committee should be submitted to the Board monthly. > > On September 1st, 2008, the Board requests that the committee > present a complete report that addresses each point outlined above > in full. The Board thanks the committee in advance for its service, > and recognizes the valuable work that has already been done by > Lodewijk Gelauff on this issue." > > I think that a resolution of this fashion sidesteps some specific problems: > > 1) It doesn't create the Volunteer Council prematurely > 2) It doesn't have legal implications - the committee has no formal > authority but does have the imprimatur of the Board > 3) It creates the working group sought to make a determination, and > sets a specific timeline for progress and resolution > 4) It allows the committee to request resources such as a private > mailing list > > Thoughts? Criticism? > > Nathan > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

1 0

[Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal sent to the Board
by effe iets anders 03 Apr '08

03 Apr '08

Dear all, I am very glad that the proposal for establishing a provisional volunteer council received such a lot support both on this list as in private conversations. Since the request for candidates for the Provisional Volunteer Council, I received quite some nominations. However, unfortunately I have to admit that there were no (willing) candidates from some important regions amongst these. As I have to work with the candidates that were nominated, I was therefore unable to candidate someone from these regions. I did try however, to get at least a few projects represented, and also a more technical person (from the developers side of the volunteer spectrum). Please find my final suggestion list below in the proposal (attached again for reference - only one minor spelling and layout changes). Please note that this is a *proposed* resolution, and not yet accepted. I know this list is not very long. And some area's are still missing in representation. However, I trust this group wholehearely, and suppose that they will make sure as a first thing to get at least one or more projects better represented (such as Wikinews or Wikiversity which have a very different character). If you have major concerns with respect to this list of candidates, please send them to this list or communicate them to the Board (I am not sure which route is the best for that though). I will make no changes any more myself, but the Board is of course able to determine the list as it likes. With kind regards, Lodewijk Gelauff -------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas the Board, * recognizes the value of volunteers in Wikimedia projects and that their work is the very reason of their success, * values the volunteers' opinions and takes them into serious consideration when discussing issues involving the volunteers, * is of the opinion that these volunteers should have a strong say in changes in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, * considers a Volunteer Council a valuable intermediary between volunteers and the Foundation, and as a good instrument to hear the voice of the volunteers: it is hereby resolved that: 1. The Board of Trustees hereby creates a Volunteer Council, to serve as a valuable complement to the Staff, Advisory Board and Board of Trustees. 2. Without restricting the generality of this provision the purposes of the Volunteer Council shall include: 1) Offering advice and support on issues relevant to the Wikimedia Volunteers, 2) Recommanding the opening or closure of Wikimedia projects, 3) Approving changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation and 4) Assist in establishing a clear separation between the legal responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation as an Internet Service Provider and the community decisions for the Wikimedia Projects. 3. The members from the Volunteer Council must be volunteers within Wikimedia. 4. The Provisional Volunteer Council shall report to the Board no later than September 1, 2008, which report shall include recommendations regarding the number and composition of the Volunteer Council, and how the members of the Council shall be chosen. Said report shall also include recommendations regarding the distribution of rights and responsibilities between the Board and Council, and any changes in the by-laws that may be necessary to implement this. 5. Except where it pertains to its own procedures, no decision of the Provisional Volunteer Council shall bind any person. 6. On receipt of the said report the Board shall take such steps as it deems necessary to confirm and empower the Volunteer Council, and provide for a transition of operations from the Provisional Volunteer Council. 7. Members of the Volunteer Council will not be financially compensated for their activity. On approval by the Board of Trustees expenses of the Provisional Volunteer Council and Volunteer Council in the fulfillment of their duties may be reimbursed. 8. The following people are hereby appointed as member of the Provisional Volunteer Council: Michael Bimmler, Mbimmler (Main project: de.wikipedia) Yaroslav Blanter, Yaroslav Blanter (Main project: ru.wikipedia) Lise Broer, Durova (Main projects: en.wikipedia and commons.wikimedia ) Jesse Plamondon-Willard, Pathoschild (Main projects: en.wikisource and meta.wikimedia ) Sydney Poore, FloNight (Main project: en.wikipedia) Milos Rancic, Millosh (Main project: sr.wikipedia) Ray Saintonge, Eclecticology (Main project: en.wikisource, en.wikipedia) Andrew Whitworth, Whiteknight (Main project: en.wikibooks) Michal Zlatkovsky, Timichal (Main project: cs.wikipedia) 9. The members of the Provisional Volunteer Council may on a 2/3 vote of all its members add such additional members as they may deem necessary and useful to their deliberations.

19 39

Re: [Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal sent to the Board
by Mike Godwin 03 Apr '08

03 Apr '08

Philippe Beaudette writes: > My conclusion is that the members below (as > well as any others the Board wishes to appoint) should become a > working > group - not a provisional council - and determine what the heck a VC > would > do, clear it legally, and begin to define the process of appointing > people > to it. That does not, I believe, require a resolution this wordy or > with > this level of detail. I don't see why a self-appointed working group even needs a Board resolution. Such a group could meet, engage other community members, and so on, and continue to discuss and develop proposals without the Board's having to do anything. --Mike

5 4

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l April 2008