So then a english print version would have to be restricted down to absolutely essential information?
----- Original Message ----
From: Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:55:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume"
2008/4/26 Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>:
> 2008/4/26 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>:
>
> > Out of curiosity, how many pages would it take to package the English Wikipedia?
>
> In its entirety?
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_in_August_2007…
> :
>
> "Using volumes 25cm high and 5cm thick (some 400 pages), each page
> having two columns, each columns having 80 rows, and each row having
> 50 characters, ≈ 6MB per volume. As English Wikipedia has around 7.5GB
> of text (August 2007, length of wikitext counted by myself) ≈ 1250
> volumes. Note that this is a conservative estimate, as it doesn't
> include images, tables etc. which take up more surface than the text
> which describes them."
>
> Using pages with dimensions described here; 400 pages x 1250 volumes =
> 500 000 pages of text in August 2007.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes uses another
> method to calculate size in volumes, using a live measure of size, and
> arrives at "equivalen[ce] to 766 volumes of the Encyclopædia
> Britannica". 500 x 766 = 383 000
> Britannica-sized leaves. Again, this seems to ignore images, tables, &c.
By strange coincidence, when I sent this message, my e-mail inbox
contained exactly 766 unread conversations.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(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
[courtesy copy to foundation-l, though I suggest that discussion, if any, be
centralised on wikitech-l]
Hi all,
the search index for the mailinglist archives was last rebuilt in January.
Now, after having made quite a few queries about this here and at other
places, I learnt (and obviously had to accept) that rebuilding the search
index is quite a resources-consuming process which resulted in crashes.
To put it bluntly, I dare suggest from a non-technical POV that the "htdig"
(that's the name, isn't it?) experiment has failed. If we can only update
our search index every 6 months or so, it is pointless to have it.
Instead, I suggest that http://lists.wikimedia.org/robots.txt be modified as
to allow Google (and other search engines) to crawl /pipermail/ again. I do
not really see the privacy issues of this, nabble, gmane etc. are
google-searchable as well and I really don't see the point in barring Google
from our own archive.
If I am very honest, I do not even remember anymore, why we decided to bar
Google from http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail.
Was it due to privacy concerns? If so, which, and why is
lists.wikimedia.orgas an archive different from Nabble/Gmane?
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com
In reply to NYB's post here (which was also posted to wikien-l and which I
replied to with the same text)
The following bug, which I just entered into Bugzilla, may (if I worded it
right, and I welcome refinement or pointing out that it's a dup) be relevant
to this matter.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13864
I agree with NYB that this is a serious matter, with the potential to cause
harm to innocent bystanders, and that we should do the right thing (whatever
it is) because it's the right thing to do, not because of what some external
site or person wants us to do or not do.
With the recent improvements in internal search, the time is ripe to
consider doing this.
note that I have in the bug asked for the functionality to control the
defaults project wide, not just on en-wp.
Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
> it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
> press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
> atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear of
> being repeated
Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't understand this fear of the press.
It's especially ironic considering that the Wikimedia Foundation is
dedicated to providing free access to knowledge, and the press is
heavily used in obtaining and sourcing that knowledge. Is the claim
that the press often gets it wrong, and that the general public is
stupid enough to believe whatever the press tells them, and won't
change its mind when presented with the truth? I might buy that (the
first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
from the chaff, and get to the truth).
If you sneeze, and a journalist reports you caught the flu and are
dying, what's the big problem? Doesn't going to great lengths to make
sure no one ever sees you sneeze again only serve to compound the
problem? You seem to suggest the problem is the atmosphere of
distrust, but I don't see how that problem was caused by the press.
The WMF has an odd relationship with the press. And this isn't a new
thing. I didn't notice it until recently, but when I look back I see
this fear of (or aversion to) the press has been there for years. And
it's not just you, Florence, though yours was the first one I noticed.
I see David Gerard has also made some particularly negative comments
about the press. And that's without really looking to see if it's
something systemic within the organization.
The WMF's relationship with the press would have been an interesting
thing to talk about with Brian Bergstein. I wish I hadn't missed that
web chat. Any chance you might invite him back?
Lodewijk writes:
>> I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The
>> opinions
>> of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
>> and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
>> were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of
>> its
>> governance issues.
>
> It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
> chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
> (it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
> wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.
I think it's an error to infer, simply because the particulars of the
Board restructuring were not vetted through you, that chapter and
community concerns did not weigh heavily on the Board as it considered
all the goals it was attempting to meet through restructuring. I can
assure you that your general comments and feedback here and elsewhere
figured prominently in the Board's consideration of these issues.
--Mike
(Resent with corrected subject header and attribution -- apologies for
my errors.)
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The
>> opinions
>> of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
>> and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
>> were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of
>> its
>> governance issues.
>
> It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
> chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
> (it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
> wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.
I think it's an error to infer, simply because the particulars of the
Board restructuring were not vetted through you, that chapter and
community concerns did not weigh heavily on the Board as it considered
all the goals it was attempting to meet through restructuring. I can
assure you that your general comments and feedback here and elsewhere
figured prominently in the Board's consideration of these issues.
--Mike
Lodewijk writes:
> Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> chapter seats ...
<text omitted>
> And this has been done without asking even advice to the community or
> the chapters?
I don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The opinions
of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of its
governance issues.
--Mike
Forgive me if I am missing something... but isn't this kind of bureaucratic?
----- Original Message ----
From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:20:01 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Community of the Wikimedian Projects
As the previous proposal failed, I am able to make a different approach to
the issue related to the common body of Wikimedian projects. Proposal below
is at the Meta page [[Community of the Wikimedian
Projects<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_of_the_Wikimedian_projects>]].
Of course, it is a draft. According to my proposal, we have time until the
end of June to decide what to do with the proposal.
* * *
As the creation of Volunteer
Council<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil>(named as
Wikicouncil at the beginning) failed (Board
didn't want to create such
body<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/041917.html>),
there is a possibility for changing the approach for the creation of the
common body for the Wikimedian projects. Proposal on this page describes the
Community of the Wikimedian Projects (CWP).
In short, projects interested in coordination of their activities would
would be able to opt-in the body where they would be able to make decisions
related to all projects. Examples of such decisions may be granting bot
status at one place, increasing communication level between projects,
coordinating activities around particular WikiProjects and whatever else
which some or all projects from this group see as their common interes.
Coordination between projects is almost non-existing. While it works inside
of language boundaries, it is rare out of them. And we have a lot of tasks
which are common to all projects, especially if we are talking about the
same project types (like Wikipedia is). We are wasting a lot of resources
and efforts by doing one task a number of times. Instead of that, we should
start to work on the common goals together.
Opting in
Opting in CWP should be done by making a community decision inside of the
particular project. The process of the community decision is up to a
particular community and their own rules and customs. Sometimes it is simple
majority, sometimes it is 2/3 majority and sometimes it is consensus-lik 80%
majority. Before opting in, community of a particular project should
describe its own process for making decisions which affect the whole
project.
Community which opts in should make the next decisions at the time of opting
in:
-
To adopt all decisions already made by CWP. (If the project is opting
in at the time of CWP's creation, it should adopt only the initial
document.)
-
To delegate at least one person for coordination inside of the CWP.
-
To decide how it will make decisions: only on project-wide referendum,
by a special body which represents the projects, by a single representative
or a group of representatives; or in combination of all of them.
Full members and observers
Project with at least 10 very active contributors is qualified to become a
full member. Projects with less than 10 active contributors are able to make
project groups. Project group with at least 10 very active contributors is
qualified to become a full member.
Full member projects are able to vote in the decision making process, while
observing projects are not able. In all other cases rithgs of observing
projects are equal to the rights of full member projects.
Constituting the CWP
CWP will be constitued at the time when 10 projects (or groups of projects)
with the right to vote join the CWP.
CWP bodies
-
Decision-making body:
-
Council of the Wikimedian Projects is the body which is
consisted of the representatives or delegates of all full member projects.
-
Working bodies
-
The Secretariat is the main coordinating body. Its role is to
coordinate activities of CWP. The Secretariat is giving reports
to the CWP
quarterly.
-
Working groups are permanent or non-permanent CWP bodies made to
address a particular issue.
All members of CWP's bodies have to be Wikimedians, while they don't need to
be members of the project-member.
Decision making process
All of the decisions should be made with clearly support of all
project-members. Projects are able to decide how it would be made. They may
choose to make all of the decisions inside of their communities or to elect
one or more persons to represent their will. All proposals should consider
that fact and leave enough of time for decision.
Council of Wikimedian Projects may delegate to the working bodies power to
make a particular decision.
CWP's first tasks
-
Chosing the Secretariat of the CWP.
-
Addressing common issues, like centralized bot flags are.
-
Translating and analyzing rules made by communities.
-
Making a program for self-education of the community members according
to the projects needs.
Transitional notes
-
This proposal is on discussion until the June 30th, 2008. Until that
time the next tasks should be done:
-
The document should be finished in details.
-
Provisional Secretariat, a body which should made the rest of
the job should be formed by volunteers interested in this issue.
-
During another three months (until September 30th, 2008) the next
tasks should be done:
-
Provisional Secretariat should make an analysis statistics and
define which projects are egliable to be the full members and whichmay be
observing members (or need to make a group of projects to have
the right to
vote).
-
Provisional Secretariat should contact all Wikimedian projects
and present to them this proposal.
-
Projects should opt in.
-
If CWP wouldn't be constitued in that time, Provisional
Secretariat may give three months more grace period. If CWP wouldn't be
constitued in that time, Provisional Secretariat should declare that the
constitution of CWP didn't succeed.
End notes
-
The main idea behind CWP is to make a body which would be able to
address common issues on the existing projects. Its primary goal is not to
deal with non-existing projects or the global structure of Wikimedian
community.
-
CWP may decide to take care about the projects which don't have very
active contributors. However, it may be done only in coordination with the
Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation.
-
As CWP is an opt-in body, until it doesn't represent the clear
majority of the Wikimedian community, it shouldn't be able to make decisions
related to make any meta decisions, including aproving or disaproving new
projects, stewards or any other global Wikimedian body. However, if the
project members of CWP decides so, it may be able to approve Arbitration
Committees or similar bodies inside of the member projects.
-
CWP may decide to act as an intermediate body between project members
communities and Wikimedia Foundation.
Volunteers willing to be members of the Provisional Secretariat
If you are willing to become a member of the Provisional Secreatirat, sign
here.
-
~~~
_______________________________________________
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
At this stage, the board has decided not to take action on the proposal
to develop a Volunteer Council. We thank everyone who put the time and
effort into formulating and discussing this proposal. Although the board
did not find a clear fit for this proposal in the formal structure of
the Wikimedia Foundation, we didn't rule out the possibility that the
Wikimedia project communities might organize this or another type of
council for their own benefit.
--Michael Snow
The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.
Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008.
The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.
Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.
Further information can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation.
For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette
[[m:User:Philippe]]
.
