Michael Snow wrote:
> As I've alluded to a few times, I've been working with Sue to start a
> long-term strategic planning process. This was a major topic of our last
[...]
> The principles guiding this process should include:
>
> * Transparency. As much as possible, work should be done in public, and
> be visible to all.
>
> * Participation. The mechanisms used to solicit input should be designed
> to be as open as reasonably possible, and to encourage broad
> participation.
>
> * Collaboration. We recognize that we will not develop a consensus
> strategy that pleases everyone. We will need to make difficult decisions
> that may prove unpopular. But we believe that people who want to have a
> voice in the process, should be heard.
* Multilingualism should be another key principle. Most WMF-Wiki contributors have none or only fair English language skills.
syrcro
--
Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a
Has anyone at the foundation taken a look at the owner of wookiepedia.org?
Maybe you could team up with Lucasfilm to investigate whether or not it may
be in violation of any trademark rights of one or both companies.
Imagine there was a message so important that you show it at the top of
the page, on every page on the whole site, and in every language; no
matter if you are logged in or not, and no matter how many times you
have seen it before.
Then imagine all you ever hear about these messages is a passing mention
elsewhere,
The survey, which ran in a central sitenotice in October and
November of last year ... and whether they donated to the
Wikimedia Foundation (or not).
Of course they did not donate. They never saw any fundrasing, nor
Wikimaina notices, so nobody ever encounters such users either.
In http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/42824
Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> writes:
> My understanding is that we use JS for this so that
> a) search engines don't pick up the notices (which are typically transient),
That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also search engines
request that you don't try to present different content to them than
regular users. I'm sure site notices would not spoil search engine
results.
> b) we avoid Squid cache, so they can be visible immediately.
I.e., they are of the utmost importance that everybody see.
Please use a different technical solution. Site notices and ways to just
see them once etc. have been around at least since UNIX. Never before
has one used a method that excludes users of certain devices from ever
knowing about them.
Isn't an accessible web site a pre-requisite for some grant monies?
At least provide site messages that gracefully degrade if one does not
use fancy browsers, but not disappear completely!
As I've alluded to a few times, I've been working with Sue to start a
long-term strategic planning process. This was a major topic of our last
board meeting, and after the meeting the board formally passed a
resolution directing Sue to develop this process. You will be hearing
more about this shortly, but first I want to share the text of the
resolution itself, which was passed unanimously as follows:
Whereas the Wikimedia Foundation intends to develop a strategic plan
laying out a course of action for the next three to five years, the
Board of Trustees directs its Executive Director, Sue Gardner, to
develop and execute a strategic planning process, in close consultation
with the Board, and on its behalf.
The work of the Wikimedia Foundation is founded in the premise that
open, mass collaboration is the most effective method for achieving
high-quality decisionmaking. Therefore, we ask that the strategic
planning process be designed to include input from a wide range of
sources, including Wikimedia volunteers and supporters representing a
diversity of geographies and projects. We ask that the process also aim
to solicit input from parties who are currently not part of the
Wikimedia community, in an effort to broaden our knowledge base and
benefit from new ideas and information.
The principles guiding this process should include:
* Transparency. As much as possible, work should be done in public, and
be visible to all.
* Participation. The mechanisms used to solicit input should be designed
to be as open as reasonably possible, and to encourage broad participation.
* Collaboration. We recognize that we will not develop a consensus
strategy that pleases everyone. We will need to make difficult decisions
that may prove unpopular. But we believe that people who want to have a
voice in the process, should be heard.
--Michael Snow
I read your information at this time and I am also start a school project at
backward place.But,I have some problem at this place.There society is not
face for this.But,I am tring to do the best for this project.This project
would be start from two lakhs doller. and,I want to think here rehaibilation
and social development. Please gives me answere soon .My contact no.
-+91-9213794510-,Thanks,
Actually users with disabilities are just one part of the accessibility
pie. If you keep Wikipedia accessible, users of all kinds of devices
will be able to use it. E.g., PDA and mobiles,
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki/30768
Imagine there was a message so important that you show it at the top of
the page, on every page on the whole site, and in every language; no
matter if you are logged in or not, and no matter how many times you
have seen it before.
Then imagine all you ever hear about these messages is a passing mention
elsewhere,
The survey, which ran in a central sitenotice in October and
November of last year ... and whether they donated to the
Wikimedia Foundation (or not).
Of course they did not donate. They never saw any fundrasing, nor
Wikimaina notices, so nobody ever encounters such users either.
In http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/42824
Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> writes:
> My understanding is that we use JS for this so that
> a) search engines don't pick up the notices (which are typically transient),
That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also search engines
request that you don't try to present different content to them than
regular users. I'm sure site notices would not spoil search engine
results.
> b) we avoid Squid cache, so they can be visible immediately.
I.e., they are of the utmost importance that everybody see.
Please use a different technical solution. Site notices and ways to just
see them once etc. have been around at least since UNIX. Never before
has one used a method that excludes users of certain devices from ever
knowing about them.
Isn't an accessible web site a pre-requisite for some grant monies?
At least provide site messages that gracefully degrade if one does not
use fancy browsers, but not disappear completely!
Hi,
Two days ago there was an Open Educational Resources in Poland
Conference. The conference was organized under the honorary patronage
of the Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland Mr. Bronisław
Komorowski, by Coalition for Open Education of which Wikimedia Polska
is one of 4th memebers. The conference took place on Thursday, April
23 at. 12.00-16.00 CEST in the Column Hall of the Sejm (Polish
Parliament) of the Republic of Poland (Warsaw, ul. Wiejska 4/6/8).
More than 100 people participated in the Conference, among others
several Polish MPs, Minister of Eduaction, Marshal of Polish lower
house of Parliament (Sejm) and several other VIPs. , Melissa Hagemann
(Open Society Institute) who is also a member of Advisory Committee of
Wikimedia Foundation had the final summary speach.
CONFERENCE PROGRAM
12.00 - 12.30 OPENING OF THE CONFERENCE
Jarosław Lipszyc (Chairman KOED, Foundation Modern Poland)
Bronisław Komorowski, Marshal of the Sejm
Katarzyna Hall, Minister of National Education
Ewa Kuziemska Director at Ministry of Science
12.30 - 14.00: SESSION I: OPEN EDUCATION - PRESENTATION OF ISSUES
Moderator: Bożena Bednarek-Michalska (The Polish Librarians Association)
Susan D'Antoni (UNESCO): "Open Educatonal Resources: Building a
Culture of Sharing "
prof. Richard Baraniuk (project Connexions, Rice University): "The
Open Education Movement: A Modern Approach to Teaching and Learning "
prof. dr hab. Marek Niezgódka (ICM UW): "An open model of
communication in science and education"
14.00 - 14.20 COFFEE BREAK
14.20 - 15.20: SESSION II: OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES IN POLAND
Moderator: Bożena Bednarek-Michalska (The Polish Librarians Association)
Krzysztof Stanowski (Ministry of National Education) and dr Grażyna
Czetweryńska (Warsaw University): "Polish school - open educational
resources for the Pole-in outside the country"
dr Alek Tarkowski (ICM UW): "The regulation of open education and learning"
dr hab. Tomasz Ganicz (Wikimedia Poland): "Open access to the public contents"
15.20 - 16.00 DEPUTIES STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Krzysztof Tyszkiewicz (MP)
Marcin Zawiła (MP)
Andrzej Celiński (MP)
Comments and final remarks: Jarosław Lipszyc (Foundation Modern
Poland) and Melissa Hagemann (Open Society Institute)
We hope, the conference will bring more attention and understanding to
the Open Educational Resources in Poland, especially in case of
Polish MP's and members of goverment.
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerekhttp://www.ganicz.pl/poli/http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
Hi,
I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable
(which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new,
which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
2009/4/21 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>:
> The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core
> principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of
> these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to
> maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV
policy. Like Wikiquote, our "unit" of interest is something that
typically has a strong authorial voice rather than being a synthesis
of multiple contributions. (Unlike WQ, it does in some circumstances
make sense to edit a file, unlike a quote -- but usually if the edit
radically changes the meaning, it should become a separate, derived
work.)
We are also, like WQ, bound by the creations of others, especially in
relation to past events. If there is some past conflict, where the
(free) media is available only represents one side of the conflict,
there is nothing we can do to "balance" that. So there is an external
limit on how "neutral" we are able to be.
I also find there is some tension between the views of 1) "Wikimedia
Commons as a service project" and 2) "Wikimedia Commons as a project
in its own right".
According to 1), the files in Commons are "context-free", waiting to
be used somewhere and given context. And context is a major part of
NPOV. As a service project, it would not be up to us to decide
questions of "proportional representation", because that would all
depend on how they are used in the projects.
According to 2), the Commons community would have a role to play in
deciding appropriate proportional representation, and we would assume
the Wikimedia Commons itself is a context of use for the files.
This plays into the question of how much autonomy the Wikimedia
Commons community has. If we have a curatorial role beyond being
"license police" and enforcing our necessarily very broad project
scope, then that must be negotiated between these two views. I
definitely believe it is not Common's role to decide "for" projects,
which free media they should use. So this is something of a constraint
for (2).
It *may* make sense to talk to NPOV for Wikimedia Commons, but I don't
think it is necessarily obvious, or that it should be assumed everyone
has a shared understanding of what that means.
Of interest: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_vi…>
cheers,
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Dear all,
German television ZDF has visited Wikimedia Deutschland. In a 15 min
contribution you see the office in Berlin, and the faces of some names
not unfamiliar to Wikimedians. It's a nice, unsensational film, with
the first sentence: "Unbelievable - but never before so many knew so
little about someting that they use so often." Isn't this the motto of
all Wikimedia public outreach?
Kind regards
Ziko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hpiXbyzUjc
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde