Hi,
2008 has started as the year of old school encyclopedias permanently
relocating to the internet when Brockhaus announced that the current 30
volume edition would be the last one available in print. It may end as the
year when trees can yet again wither in the hope that they will end as
repositories of human knowledge. In a few hours, a well-known publishing
house will announce the production of a single-volume Wikipedia to be
available in stores this fall. Prior to this announcement, we wanted to
provide you with some background and details on this project.
There have been a number of approaches to publish Wikipedia content in print
such as the community-developed WikiReaders of a few years ago or the
WikiPress series of paperbacks produced by DirectMedia in Berlin. Now a new
project has started with the goal to produce a general encyclopedia based on
Wikipedia articles. First ideas for a single volume edition were formulated
some years ago but it wasn't until this year that a publisher was found who
would turn this vision into reality: this fall, the Bertelsmann Lexikon
Institut (Wissen Media) will publish the "Wikipedia encyclopedia in one
volume" in German language.
The first edition will contain 50,000 articles consisting of the
introductory paragraphs taken from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. The
paragraphs usually provide a compact overview of the topic and its
significance so they are well-suited for being published separately. They
are comparable in depth and structure to full entries in other single-volume
encyclopedias. At a price of €19.95 and its size of about 1,000 pages, it
will be a pretty good value in comparison to similar works. The volume will
be printed in full color and published as a hardcover with about 100
pictures taken from Wikipedia as well.
Topic selection for the first edition was based on page hits collected for
German Wikipedia. The data was taken from Domas Miuzas' Wikistats (
http://dammit.lt/wikistats/) and adjusted to reduce the impact of current
but short-lived events in favor of lastingly popular topics. The list of
authors for each article will be included in the finished volume and the
GFDL will be observed as would be expected.
There are a number of ways in which we see Wikipedia profiting from this
project:
1) The Bertelsmann editors working on the first edition will submit parts of
their work--such as improvements to article introductions--to Wikipedia
under the GFDL.
2) The accessibility of Wikipedia content will be broadened to a wider range
of readers. We may even recruit some new authors as a side effect.
3) For every copy sold, one Euro goes back to Wikimedia.
We're looking forward to the response of this forthcoming announcement as
well as the public availability of the first edition later this year.
Sebastian Moleski
Board of Directors
Wikimedia Deutschland
People are afraid that the Board is forgetting why it exists.
----- Original Message ----
From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:19:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
I am somewhat perturbed by the reaction here.
Perhaps this was not the best approach for the Board to restructure
its membership, but to leap from that to the assumed bad faith a
number of participants here have expressed is highly disturbing.
This has not been an episode of healthy skepticism. I assume that
everyone has the overall projects' best interests in mind, but the
level of distrust is disturbing, and does not evidently stem primarily
or originally from the actual chapters select two of the board members
proposal.
Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people
actually upset about?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
David Goodman writes:
> 3) make plain our total repugnance for officers of the foundation who
> talk about the people who create Wikipedia as not having or deserving
> the right to the running of the project.
I don't know of any officers of the Foundation who are dismissive of
the people who create Wikipedia. Both Board and staff regard the
volunteer community as essential. That is not the least of the
reasons this organization has chosen to have the community select a
majority of the Board members. That hasn't changed. At the same time,
the Board has attempted to address two weaknesses -- (1) integrating
the chapters more formally into the Board selection process, and (2)
filling out the Board with the kind of professional expertise the
Foundation and its projects need for the next stage of their
development.
The fact that the pre-existing bylaws referred to the chapters as part
of the Foundation's structure but gave no formal role to the chapters
in the selection of Board members has seemed anomalous to many people,
including me. If I can say so without seeming dismissive of some
complaints here, the Board's effort to restructure itself so that
chapters are properly recognized seems to me to be a positive
development.
--Mike
Unfortunately, we can't remove most of them. Maybe the Board should not have the power to modify bylaws.
----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:29:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Jason Safoutin
> You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
> nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
> attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
> The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
> with total disregard as to what we might think.
I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
want should be ignored off-hand.
Since emails, complaints, discussion have done nothing to turn the
creeping tide of secrecy and separation on the part of the current
board, perhaps the best recourse is for community members to speak
with their votes. Board members who have been acting in a way contra
to the will and benefit of the community should be systematically
removed, and replaced with community members who are actually
dedicated to this community. Most voters will probably agree that
board members without such dedication do not belong on the board
beyond the next election.
--Andrew Whitworth
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
As one of the Wikinews contributors has pointed out, this is starting to
come together and look like something achievable. With that in mind, I have
been advised to move the discussion over to meta and perhaps make it a
little less of a Wikinews project and more of a Wikimedia project.
It is my intention to do so over the coming week, but I would gratefully
welcome advice from people on this list as to how to put together a proposal
that will get a favourable reception. We're talking about using a lot of
non-MediaWiki software for this, but the packages suggested all have the
needed scalability. The technical hurdles to overcome do not seem
impossible, I just wish I could get a half hour of Brion's time to help make
a start on software specifications.
So, with some momentum on this at the moment can we get everyone who ever
wanted to hear themselves on the radio on-board?
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McNeil [mailto:brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org]
Sent: 25 April 2008 18:20
To: 'birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com'; 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal
positionofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
Thanks for the suggestion! At the moment I've been trying to get other
people thinking about the content side while I go play at 'herding cats' to
get the technical side designed, if not developed.
It looks like we run Icecast as the stream server (which supports relays
just like the MediaWiki/Squid relationship), we feed content into that from
another FLOSS package called Liquidsoap. And - the good part - the Savonet
community that maintains Liquidsoap thinks this is a very interesting idea
and developing software to run their package from playlists in a wiki would
simply be commonsense. One of them is currently knocking together a
prototype to do this, and I believe he can do so, among the other FLOSS
oddjobs he does is packaging MW with Debian.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB
Sent: 25 April 2008 15:11
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal
positionofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
It you need more content; all the recordings at LibriVox.org are public
domain. I believe they considered a copy-left license but because of the
difficulties outlined in the beginning of this thread they went public
domain. So you might want to contact them on their thoughts about
licenssing as well.
Birgitte SB
--- On Thu, 4/24/08, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position
ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
> To: "'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 11:56 AM
> In trying to lay out an eight-hour schedule, I'm trying
> to lay out a
> framework to work within and a goal to aim for. This
> doesn't preclude doing
> podcasts right now, in fact doing them would be eminently
> sensible. You've
> just got to do them with an eye to a future where you can
> download them from
> a WMF server, catch them on our Internet radio service, or
> any other number
> of ways of getting at the content. You need to work to a
> more strict
> timescale and be able to swap in and out different
> intro/outro pieces for
> the context the material is presented in.
>
> So, on one track we work on all these, "please be less
> ambitious" sides of
> the argument. People do their podcasts and recordings as
> they would, but
> perhaps with reference to time constraints that might apply
> in a radio
> environment. Where building a library of timeless material
> is feasible, it
> gets done.
>
> Then there's the technical side of this. It certainly
> isn't going to happen
> overnight, a lot of "glue" software would need
> written to keep to a seamless
> schedule. With some of the things I see in WMF press
> releases we'd really be
> looking to run a lot of software that currently has no
> connection whatsoever
> with MediaWiki. To oversimplify to the point that a
> developer would wake in
> a cold sweat, we need an extension; one that can feed data
> out of a wiki and
> into a content generator that interfaces with a broadcast
> server. From some
> poking around that'd be Icecast and Liquidsoap. The MW
> extension would need
> to control Liquidsoap; send queries and accept responses
> from it as to what
> to play next.
>
> To state the obvious, the majority of the development time
> on something like
> this is going to have to come out of the community. Brion
> and his merry men
> are probably up to their asses in alligators trying to make
> sure SUL and
> Flagged Revisions go off smoothly. What I think is the good
> news is that
> when we do get them to look at this FLOSS stack for radio,
> it certainly
> appears to have been set up with the WMF in mind. It has a
> version that
> reminds me of squid proxies, and it looks like you could
> almost run this
> cache system as close as the last mile and have ISPs with
> their own server
> providing the stream and their main line kept free for
> other stuff.
>
> When the technology is in place, we start streaming.
> I'll be honest, if it's
> all Commons music to start with I don't care.
> Obviously, I want to see
> Wikinews doing the top of the hour headlines at this point,
> but the
> relevance of that is only going to increase as we bring in
> other projects
> and expand the content. The beta should see the "how
> to do audio" lessons
> from Wikiversity broadcast throughout a segment; stick in
> the Wikipedia
> podcasts on a Sunday with a Wednesday repeat... You've
> a radio station. If
> we can get to that point I think we've a project that
> will just grow
> naturally.
>
>
> Brian McNeil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> Of David Gerard
> Sent: 24 April 2008 11:06
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal
> position
> ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
>
> On 24/04/2008, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you
> start small and grow
> bigger.
> > No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero
> hours now. As the
> > longest running regularly published audio product in
> the Wikipedia
> universe,
> > believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
>
>
> Yeah. Anyone who's done public radio knows what a
> commitment a weekly
> radio show is.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Giving the community the finger generally does not lead to a happy community. The volunteers are the reason why we have Wikimedia, not the other way around.
----- Original Message ----
From: Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:52:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the
community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it
or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality
or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the
Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership
of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act
in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the
law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of
convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term
means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for
Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement*
to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership
organization.
Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated
and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I
suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins
of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything
except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter,
if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to
vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an
election to fill Board seats.
I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented
people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate
governance. Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and
educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries.
Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to
lead an international organization. If not, work on obtaining the skills to
be such a leader, if you choose. Toiling on a project is neither a
necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
> but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
> competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
> just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
> financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
> blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
> participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
> of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
>
> Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
> group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
> old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
> that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
> highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
> can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
> highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
> want should be ignored off-hand.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> In one word: Thank you.
> I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say
> that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's
> 'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no
> confidence out of this affair.
> It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I
> know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time.
> But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we
> see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-...
> words).
>
> Michael
>
>
>
See this is where I get troubled. All I ever hear is maybe next time,
maybe next time. How many next times will it take? Honestly of the 2
1/2+ years I have been around, there have been too many 'next times.'
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
I do also appreciate the service that the Board has provided. Its just that this recent move seems like a slap in the face to volunteers. The fact that the Advisory Board was not consulted is also worrying. If they aren't being asked to advise, why do we have them?
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:48:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so
> quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the
> community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that
> took
> a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear
> about
> these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence
> alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't
> translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who
> don't totally ignore the will of the community."
>
> As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue,
> unnecessary
> and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard
> to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very
> hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community -
> and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational
> statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of
> those
> people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We
> can't
> require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia,
> but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea
> nonetheless.
>
>
In one word: Thank you.
I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say
that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's
'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no
confidence out of this affair.
It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I
know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time.
But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we
see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-...
words).
Michael
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
That was just a random musing. I simply meant that having the ability to write your own term is generally a COI.
----- Original Message ----
From: Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:52:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 09:36 -0700, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Unfortunately, we can't remove most of them. Maybe the Board should not have the power to modify bylaws.
Erm, considering the Wikimedia Foundation does not have any members, can
you tell me who you propose then that be given the rights to modify the
Bylaws? The employees?
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Unfortunately, they no longer are subject to the will of the community. So technically they no longer work for us.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin(a)wikinewsie.org>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:51:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
Domas Mituzas
wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a
>> public vote
>> across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured),
>> I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a
> popularity contest.
>
>
Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the
board likes it or not, we elected you. And those who were appointed have
the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as
such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the
best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you
guys should resign.
You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
with total disregard as to what we might think.
From what I see, the only board member doing anything around here, or
making the slightest attempt to communicate with the communities as much
as possible, is Florence. And what a surprise, her seat is up for grabs.
Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this
is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and
not going totake it anymore.
Sorry if this sound rude or confrontational, but it seems that this is
the only way to get anyone's attention, who is on the board these days
as they seem to only pay attention to whats said on here and on meta. So
that being the case, it gets increasingly frustrating to have to be
civil and not get anything in return. So please see where I am coming
from, and the others who feel the same way.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Community_petition
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ