Wikimedia-l May 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

135 participants
189 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
by Geoffrey Plourde 12 May '08

12 May '08

Unlike the Assembly, Meta is not an structured body. The Assembly will serve as a unified community voice, not the meta aspects of projects. ----- Original Message ---- From: Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:15:08 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly > From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> > What makes it any different than any current list or page? On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > As of this point the Community has no leadership body. This would step in and fill the void without disenfranchising the collective voice of the community. This sounds to me very much like meta.wikimedia.org. Thanks, Pharos _______________________________________________ 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

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
by Geoffrey Plourde 12 May '08

12 May '08

This idea is fairly straightforward. Could you point to specific issues and how it is bureaucratic? ----- Original Message ---- From: Ryan <wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:21:12 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The Wikimedia Community Assembly is a proposed leadership body for the > Wikimedia Community. This proposal is is designed to be significantly more > straightforward, inclusive, and less bureaucratic than the Wikicouncil or > Community of the Wikimedian Projects. The impetus for this proposal is the > void that currently exists in community governance. This gap is prohibitive > to the full realization of the potential of the community as an asset to the > Foundation. To address this gap, its most important task would providing a > unified community voice to the Board and the world. > In accordance with the principles of the open source movement, membership > in the Assembly would be granted to any Wikimedian who requests it. By doing > so, this would prevent this body from becoming a elitist cabal, by insuring > that all are heard, not just a privileged few. To prevent this body from > being dragged down by size, which does not allow for business to be > conducted in an orderly and efficent fashion, subgroups > (Committees/Commissions/Working Groups/Task Forces) specializing in specific > issues would be created. Any 5 members with a specific issue or topic would > be able to create a subgroup to work on that issue or topic. Membership in > these issue specific subgroups would be open to all, but if necessary due to > size, another group might be formed. > The Assembly would run according to a community written charter, that would > be revised at least once every calendar year. Decisions of the Assembly > would be made by consensus, as with most other Wikimedian projects. > > Can I get some thoughts on this? > Frankly, it sounds like yet another idea that is much more bureaucratic than it's worth, and one that doesn't solve any problem currently before us. You've already created more rules for this assembly than it could possibly make for itself. -- [[User:Ral315]] _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

[Foundation-l] Thank-You
by BRENDA CAREY 12 May '08

12 May '08

Thank you for letting me join this community phillip a. ca P.A.C.

2 1

[Foundation-l] Querylogs and accesslogs
by Antonio Gulli 12 May '08

12 May '08

Hi, are this information accessible for an academic research paper? Thank you

4 5

[Foundation-l] Future board meetings
by Florence Devouard 12 May '08

12 May '08

Greetings, I have updated the agenda for the future board meetings. I will normally chair the next two meetings, but I was bold and gave an outline of what the future meetings could also include ;-) You will find the complete information here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings Please add comments on the talk page if you wish Below, I'll comment a bit longer on the next two agendas IRC meeting in june * review of the D&O (was not received in time at last board meeting) D&O ---> insurance * official (re)-creation of the ED evaluation committee and timeline currently, the committee include only JB and I. * approval of the Role of the treasurer (already drafted) it is more or less the description we posted here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Treasurer * approval of the Role of the chair currently: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Description_of_board_members_jobs * approval of the Role of the secretary currently: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Description_of_board_members_jobs * discussion over adoption (or not) of a Board attendance policy (not drafted) It is one of my requests, but does not seem to get much support for now * first feedback from new treasurer Self explanatory * approval of new privacy policy (if available on time, otherwise -> july. Already mentionned in previous emails) * approval of budget (to be approved in june, whether at meeting or email) * feedback on the new pledge and attendance policy (see Mike email) new version was received 2 days ago 1 day at Wikimania (july 08) 1 day, probably on the 15th of july * approval of Resolution:Minutes approval April 2008 * official acceptance of new board member * elections of new chair * official creation of the board nominating committee according to board restructuration incidently, I would love some feedback from you guys about this committee. If you feel someone should really be on it, to help identify our future appointed members, I'll listen carefully and suggest the name to the board. Please do not feel left out from this part of the process. You are more than welcome being involved in it. I hope we'll talk more of this in june. This should be an open discussion. * financial report (included email audit report from Stu) * ED report * comment on draft from the chapters re:governance issues Hopefully, chapters will have a first proposition for the elections by then. To be further discussed at may meeting in Netherlands * advisory board meeting feedback An advisory board meeting will take place the day before the board meeting. I do not know clearly yet what the agenda of this meeting is. * possibility of future sub-national entities as a different tier organizations to be discussed That's essentially a discussion around chapters, or near-chapters; US chapters etc... It may be an extended meeting (more participants than board proper) Beyond these two dates, it is a bit the mystery :-) My own suggestions would be that by summer 08, a business strategy should have been outlined by the staff, and I hope we'll get something presented, to approve. Given that the fundraising people have not yet been hired, approving a fundraising strategy might be difficult. However, september will probably be the right time to start working on the annual online fundraising. So, I expect a strategy of some sort will have to be discussed and approved. Fall will probably be dedicated to financial/audit considerations, after we receive the management letter of the audit company. Now that we have an accountant, a CFO, a treasurer, an audit firm and a newly composed audit committee, I hope that next year audit will be achieved rather "quickly". Sue will celebrate (?) her first year with us in June and her first year as ED in november. Fall will be the time for assessing her job. And probably assessing most of the policies and procedures she has implemented in the past. I'd love it if some input comes from community members and volunteers as well. I mean... not necessarily the usual complaints that too much money is being spent on travel, but slightly more constructive criticism such as "what has the Foundation really done to support the Wikimedia projects ? ". Have any of you guys considered helping/pushing to get an annual report of some sort ? Fall will be the time when the first Nomination Committee will provide a list of candidates for appointment to the board. So, I expect appointment will be part of fall agenda. IF I were chair, I would suggest finding the time for a technical strategy point in fall/winter. Perhaps the community could feel that an interesting point to push. Perhaps the community would feel like providing tech wish lists to the staff, and nicely request a technical improvement timeline from the Foundation at some point in the future. Hmmm. Okay, I am not pushing too much here ? Last, I would suggest that new year 2009 be opened by a brand new assessment of board performance, with individual assessment of each board member, and individual set of measurable goals for the year. Assessment which would not only help the general organization, but also help the board members to feel really used for what they are good for, AND be useful for board members and community to have a nice kick off for the future elections in summer 2009. I provided Véronique a few days ago, with an estimate of board-only expenses. I planned 3 board meetings during the year (plus Wikimania). So, one meeting at Wikimania. One meeting in october/november (ED assesment, selection of new members, audit/financial issues, fundraising strategy, review of policies and procedures). One meeting around January (Technical strategy, welcome new members, start of board assessment, outreach strategy perhaps ?) One meeting around April/May Thank you for your attention. Feedback welcome. Florence

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Querylogs and accesslogs
by Antonio Gulli 12 May '08

12 May '08

Good morning, I put this question 2 years ago. I know that some stats are now available here http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ Is is possible to use them for an academic paper? > > >> Gregory Maxwell ha scritto: >>> On 11/24/06, Antonio Gulli <gulli(a)di.unipi.it> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> are this information accessible for an academic research paper? >>>> Thank you >>> >> Is wiki using apache web server or something equivalent server? >> I was referring to the access.log file >>> Sorry, we do not currently store this data because of the >>> performance impact. >>> We do, however, have plenty of data on editing. >>> >>> We also have some low quality sampled data on readership for some of >>> our projects at: >>> >>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/ >>> >>> >> >> > >

3 3

[Foundation-l] Board elections: Weekly report for May 3 to May 10
by Jesse Plamondon-Willard 11 May '08

11 May '08

Hello, This is a summary of the 2008 board elections for the week of May 3 to 10. For detailed information on the elections, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. ==Timeline== * We are accepting candidates between May 8th and 22nd inclusively. There are currently two candidates. * We're still looking for translators; the main translation phase continues until 01 June 2008. ==Election rules== The rules for candidates were slightly changed, centralizing submissions and allowing changes until 22 May 2008 (previously no changes were allowed after submission). <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en?diff=989348&oldid=98…> Two discussions are currently on hold while we examine technical feasibility: * sending an official notification email to all eligible voters; * the voting system. ==Translation== For a detailed translation report, see translators-l: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2008-May/000664.html> ==See also== * detailed information: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en> * ask a question: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008> * previous report: <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/29567> -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
by Geoffrey Plourde 11 May '08

11 May '08

This actually sounds like a good idea. Keeps Willy on Wheels from becoming Guillermo en Carro. ----- Original Message ---- From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:47:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised. CM Odi profanum vulgus et arceo. > Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:18:44 -0700 > From: saintonge(a)telus.net > To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption > > White Cat wrote: > > You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right? > > > Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking > in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems. > Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends > like you the proposal needs no enemies > > The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to > > the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive > > user. > > > We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming > good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he > does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice > list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of > recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that > those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import > some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than > vandals, spammers and trolls. > > When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another > > wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit > > en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are > > dealing with. > > -- White Cat > > > The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts > in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the > user there, that is entirely their business. > > Ec _________________________________________________________________ Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: A wiki where every article is a real medical case
by Geoffrey Plourde 11 May '08

11 May '08

Mikael; I can see a lot of promise in this idea. I think you should approach CDC with it though, because they would have the resources to make it more productive. Sincerely; Geoff ----- Original Message ---- From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:52:12 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: A wiki where every article is a real medical case From: Mikael Häggström <haggstrom.mikael(a)gmail.com> > A proposal of a new Sister Project, called Wikisick is started. > It is a wiki where every article is a real medical case. Basically, > the victims of diseases write the symptoms and upload interactive > media, and any medically interested person describes it. Possibly redundant with existing non-Wikimedia projects: http://askdrwiki.com/ http://www.ganfyd.org/ Both of these restrict contribution to medical professionals, presumably for quality of content. - d. _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

[Foundation-l] Fwd: A wiki where every article is a real medical case
by Michael Bimmler 11 May '08

11 May '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mikael Häggström <haggstrom.mikael(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:31 PM Subject: A wiki where every article is a real medical case To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org Good day A proposal of a new Sister Project, called Wikisick is started. It is a wiki where every article is a real medical case. Basically, the victims of diseases write the symptoms and upload interactive media, and any medically interested person describes it. See proposal details for Wikisick. Best regards Mikael Häggström -- Michael Bimmler mbimmler(a)gmail.com

8 7

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
19
Older →

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 May 2008