The mania of my dreams has voice-montages from the public speeches of
various wikimedians to announce the end of sessions / meals /
coffee-times. A 90-min panel on article quality with John Seigenthaler,
Ryan Jordan, Larry Sanger and Mathias Schindler, moderated by Lord
Emsworth. And various covers of the chipmunk-voiced wiki-section of "Jam On
It" as musical theme.
my dreams are troubled dreams.
SJ
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Mohamed Sanad <mohameds.sanad(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> I wanna add one more point:
>
> - It would have someone who can drive really fast like crazy to handle the
> "needed right now" stuff and urgent situations :)
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I woudl like to dedicate this thread to the Wikimania of your dreams.
>>
>> No argument, no debate, just ideas, a giant brainstorming of what the
>> Wikimania of your dreams would be. Please throw your stuff in, and try
>> to make it only positive things (ie.write "something that's green"
>> rather than "something that's not blue or red".)
>>
>>
>> here is the Wikimania of my dreams:
>>
>> -It would be in a city easy to reach, with a big airport and cheap
>> flights incoming because it's a huge hub, or it would be next door
>> (Frankfurt airport ;-) )
>> - It would be in a top-notch conference facility, with tons of plugs
>> everywhere, air conditionned if needed, modular conference rooms, all
>> in one place and close to the accommodation building (a mix of
>> Cambridge, Alexandria for the conference facility, Taipei and
>> Frankfurt for access).
>> - It would have a great outdoor and indoor community area, with wifi
>> that works all the time, with comfy couches as well as ground mats for
>> the yoga-types, with coffee, cookies, juices and fresh water available
>> at all times. (a mix of Frankfurt and Taipei)
>> - It would have all the accommodation in one place, close to the
>> conference grounds, or even actually _on_ the conference grounds, and
>> it would be cheap but practical, clean and modern accommodation, with
>> different possibilities - share a room, not share a room, share a dorm
>> etc. (a mix of Frankfurt and Taipei)
>> -It would have an amazing range of food for lunches, which would be
>> served in a big room where annoucements and meetings can take place (a
>> mix of Taipei and Cambridge).
>> - It would take place in a really "wow" place so that we get speakers
>> to *want to come* to speak (Harvard or Bibliotheca Alexandrina)
>> - It would be close to sightseeing stuff for social evenings as
>> "discovery trips".
>> - It would have an amazing party location and an amazing party with
>> dancers with rotating hat-thingies (just like Alexandria!)
>> - It would host up to 500 people, not more, so I can get to meet
>> almost all of them. :-)
>> - And finally, to steal Sj's idea, it would have a giant rotating
>> Wikipedia globe that people could get into and make roll around like a
>> hamster wheel, just for the fun of it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Delphine
>>
>> --
>> ~notafish
>>
>> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Your emails will get
>> lost.
>> Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm sending this email to foundation-l because there are a couple of
situations evolving in our projects that I'm having a rough time dealing
with, notably because the issues raised involve matters touching on
privacy and the autonomy of the Wikimedia projects.
People know my interest lies with the well being of the volunteers of
our projects and our projects in general. It's because of that interest
that when I am sent issues about a dispute involving members of the
community I have to look to the well-being of the projects themselves
and see how this is being impacted. Sometimes the issue involves the
interests of one project over another. Often, the issues are only
resolved by bringing the light of day to the matter and allow the
broader community at large to discuss the issues.
Scenario 1:
An active user with an unusual username on the English Wikipedia has,
for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL. An account opens up
on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly anything other
than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account. It does, however,
have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter on this wiki
if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while believing
that the account is an impostor account seems to be unwilling to resolve
the situation without demanding that the user come to the smaller
project and ask for usurpation. Obviously, we wouldn't want to force
the issue with an autonomous project.
How should this be addressed?
Does the user have any other option than editing the smaller wiki and
adding the Username Change request, which basically subjects the user to
his/her IP information being revealed to additional individuals, not of
his/her own wiki?
Scenario 2:
A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
which "outs" the individuals.
Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists? If not, how can
we best address the needs of the local projects? We have to assume the
user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle. If
he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
much hardship on other contributors?
Of course, we cannot gauge the sincerity, but if he is not, what then?
Does allowing an enwiki user to game another of our projects create long
term trouble for the wiki in the future (exportation of wikidrama from
enwiki to another project). Does the foundation or the community at
large have an obligation to ensuring this doesn't happen?
- ----
These are but two issues which may or may not deserve the light of the
community at large. I'd like to know the range of opinions and help in
determining where the foundation's responsibility ends, my
responsibility as VolCo, and the meta community (given that this
involves cross-wiki issues) at large.
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary(a)wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkigmakACgkQyQg4JSymDYle1ACgntiPP8Ztmtl5d9lbdL+lQ3Qw
SWoAn1O3tK7/z08f7x9o9PKgWeJ8gmJI
=LEaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Does anyone speak Urdu / know why there's a sun image behind their
Wikipedia's logo?
http://ur.wikipedia.org/
Doesn't seem to be milestone related.
thanks!
phoebe
Every Wikimania bid has strengths and weaknesses. Once a bid is chosen,
the ritual of criticizing the selection by focusing on some weakness
seems to have become inevitable. I would be more impressed to reconsider
the jury's selection if somebody presented a serious evaluation that
reached a different result after weighing all the issues, instead of
harping on only the one most favorable to the argument.
Since that is not yet forthcoming, I'd like to refocus the discussion on
the concept of Wikimania in general, since it seems to produce so much
debate. As an idea, Wikimania is being pulled in too many directions,
and it cannot be all things to all people. Supposing we have a consensus
that in the most basic sense it's a good idea (do we have that?), what
can we make of this idea? What kind of event should it be? What values
do we prioritize - intimacy, mass appeal, accessibility, outreach,
infrastructure, culture? Others that I haven't listed? If we care about
diversity, what is that? When we consider costs, whose costs do we mean?
How do we balance the competing considerations?
Currently the conference is planned for roughly 400 people. So far I'm
not aware of any location having difficulty attracting attendees. The
argument for catering to the highest concentrations of contributors
would be more appealing if coupled with the idea that it makes sense to
accommodate more people. But expanding Wikimania would change other
dynamics of accessibility - the type of facility used, individual costs
and overall conference expenses, the character of the event. At least so
far, nobody has been presenting this as a vision for Wikimania's future.
Another consideration is that admission fees have consciously been kept
low. Otherwise Wikimania doesn't make Wikimedia contributors a priority
- at least, not the kind of contributors I gather everyone is referring
to here. For any location most people already face costs related to
attendance, it's simply impossible to physically bring Wikimania to
everyone. Realistically, for any one person, Wikimania may be close
enough for you to come at minimal cost once or twice in your lifetime.
Some people may have to use a broad interpretation of "minimal" for even
that.
Geographic proximity only goes so far in any case. Talking about Europe
and North America may sound as if that still leaves a vast range of
options. In the first place, this would be more persuasive if we saw a
larger number of cities bidding. When it's just one from each, the
chances of producing a bid superior to a highly-motivated team from,
say, South America are not exactly overwhelming. Furthermore, even if
this was the very highest consideration, it's not exactly neutral
between those. The varying population distributions and distances,
especially for North America, would have obvious logical consequences.
Basically, we should prefer any bid from the European core (defined by
London on the west, Rome on the south, Berlin or Rome on the east,
Berlin or Amsterdam on the north); the east coast of North America would
be a secondary option (maybe we could disqualify Europe every third
year); by comparison, the odds for the rest of North America would be
decidedly inferior (after ten or so years, we might make it to Chicago
or Los Angeles).
Wikimania could be bigger or smaller, reach the developing world or only
the already-developed, more expensive or less so, rotated widely or
narrowly. Leaving aside the security concerns specific to Alexandria,
the choice of options would have the following undesirable consequences,
depending on which course is taken:
*Complaints that the event is impersonal, lacks a sense of community, or
is merely a stage-managed public relations show
*After a cycle or two, it seems to be pretty much just the same group of
people getting together every few years
*Objections that the amount being spent is a poor use of foundation
funds (depending on how it works out, this would be about either the
size of the event or the travel costs incurred by the foundation itself,
making distance from San Francisco a factor)
*Inability to accommodate anyone beyond the local audience, thus being
hardly different from a random meetup and failing to reflect the diverse
character of Wikimedia participants
*Rumors and misperceptions of unfairness in timing of when registration
is opened or how tickets are allocated
*Outrage over high admission charges, resembling more closely a
"professional" conference
I would like to understand what vision people have for Wikimania, and
see how their vision would deal with all of these issues. So far I have
heard only complaints and rebuttals, nobody offering their own vision
(on this list, at least). I fear an end result of the fights over this
would be to either abandon the idea of Wikimania, or simply to hold it
in the Moscone Center every year like Macworld. Before we get there,
let's hear some better alternatives.
--Michael Snow
Hi all,
I am trying to plan and prepare a 3day
EuroWikimania<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EuroWikimania>.
While I am still negotiating an exact date the conference probably will be
held at late January or early February. Potential sponsors want to have an
idea what they are throwing their money in so I need to provide them a
schedule to give them a general idea. This schedule will not be binding - It
will just be an unofficial general outline.
So feel free to fill in slots at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EuroWikimania/Topics
Thanks
White Cat
Etnologue classified Arabic as macrolanguage. not a single language: it's a group of language, form of a collection of several vernacular languages called "arabic"(no mutual intelligibles), and the Standard Arabic (continuer of classic arabic, no vernacular). We are talking about the last one.
it is not comparable to spanish (a vernacular language that all people of hispanic countries understand since they are babies).
And It is comparable to medieval latin because both are not vernacular, but are very useful as culture vehicle. the point is the absurd to insist in Native requirement. the reality is: native condition is not determinant, and not neccesary feature to express culture; the language prestigious is. and that do not mean i oppose native projects, no, i oppose the native requirement.
it isn't acceptable the stubborness of langcom in not replace the "native" requirement for the "Fluent expression" one. result of community consense:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community…
I've been meaning to update you on our progress regarding the privacy
policy.
Several months ago, the board asked Mike Godwin to revise and update the
privacy policy. Mike consulted with his colleagues at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, and then worked with his then-legal intern,
Shun-ling Chen, to create a first redraft which was posted to Meta at
the beginning of June. That engendered a lot of feedback, which Mike
reviewed. He found quite a bit of it useful, and incorporated it into a
subsequent redraft, which is available here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_Privacy_Policy_June_19_2008
(note: despite the date in the page name, the current version is from a
later date, based on feedback from the June 19 version)
At our meeting in Alexandria, the board reviewed the status of the
policy, and seemed inclined to agree that this second version (at the
URL above) is fundamentally good, and an improvement on the current
policy. It's hard to write a privacy policy that's fun to read, but I
think this version is clear, thorough, responsible and accurate. It also
now includes a linkable table of contents, which will enable people to
easily link to subsections of the draft for reference. (When adopted, we
encourage you to link to the appropriate section from community policy
pages where they touch on privacy issues, rather than paraphrasing or
generating unofficial versions of the policy.)
The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I wanted to
provide one last opportunity for your feedback.
If you see something in this last draft that strikes you as a
dealbreaker: that is potentially misleading or seriously problematic for
any reason, please send me or Mike a note. If we don't hear anything
within a week, I will ask the board to vote on the current version for
formal adoption.
--Michael Snow
Hi,
If you are interested in the Volunteer Council idea, maybe you will
enjoy looking at Metagovernment.
<http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page>
It kind of looks like slashdot-style karma plus... I'm not sure what
else. There might be some interesting ideas for us though. Or, we
might be able to point out ideas that we know won't work. ;)
cheers
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Reviewing the requirements of current policy
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptia…
precissely for its native condition.