Wikimedia-l May 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

162 participants
148 discussions

[Foundation-l] Towards actual clean-up...
by Robert Rohde 13 May '10

13 May '10

Many people have generally agreed that there are or have been a large number of redundant, low-quality penis pics on Commons. Towards understanding this better, I wrote a script to traverse [[:Category:Human genitalia]] and all of it's subcategories (it is refreshingly finite). In this category we have 772 images of male and female genitalia. Most appear to photographs, though some are illustrations or other art. For each image, I then determined whether it was in use in the main namespace of any Wikimedia project. Of the 772 genitalia images, 347 are currently being used to illustrate some page in the main namespace of some project. (That's still a lot of penis / vulva pics but I'll assume that the projects are at least somewhat reasonable about their uses.) The remaining 425 images aren't used in the main namespace of any project. They may still appear in other places, such as discussion pages or user pages, but are likely to be less valuable. I would assume it is images like these that are most likely to warrant exclusion by any policy that aims to address the proliferation of low-quality and redundant penis pics. Perhaps by looking at this list one can get an idea of what the issue is and consider the best ways to address it. I've compiled the list at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_genitalia_for_review (There are actually only 411 on the list, as I dropped 14 after my editor mangled the UTF8). -Robert Rohde

5 6

[Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
by Stuart West 12 May '10

12 May '10

A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the events of the past few days. First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've kept up with many of the email threads, talk pages, village pumps, and some IRC. I really appreciate the passion and energy, especially when constructive. I've been around the projects for about five years, and on the Board for over two years, and this is one of the hardest and most substantive issues we've attacked. In my view, it is also one of the most important. Here are some of my personal thoughts on the issue: - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not relevant to our educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on our projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers, educators, others) who we need on our side. Getting rid of it was the right answer for the long-term success of our mission which is a focus both of my responsibilities as a Board member and my personal motivation as a volunteer. More broadly, in allowing the clearly objectionable content on one of our projects I feel the community (including the Board, Foundation and Commons admins) failed in our collective role as stewards of the mission. - I agree with the view that the presence of hardcore pornography on Commons represents a clear failure of our community-driven consensus process and that we must change the way we do things. Among other drivers I see: (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention. A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on Commons who took bold and decisive action. Clearly it is messy, and there is room for overcorrection and the removal of some materials that are indeed relevant to our educational mission. This is inevitable but is certainly fixable. I want to thank all those who have been working so hard on this, either the initial clean-up or the ongoing review process. It's not easy work, but it's critically important. Like a lot of things within our community, the past few days have been messy. But I believe the outcome is headed in the right direction: get rid of the content that is irrelevant to or hurts our mission, bring urgency to the debate about the many challenges and gray areas, and most importantly fix the policies/processes that have been broken. Let's get to it. -stu ===================== Stu West Member, Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation

14 18

[Foundation-l] Motives?
by Adam Cuerden 12 May '10

12 May '10

I just realised: Every single one of Wales' actions make sense if Jimbo was trying to completely purge Commons of anything the least bit controversial to kill the story, figuring it could be brought back in a couple months. His statements lend strong support to this theory. Consider: *"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=p… Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. <b>This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images.</b>]" *"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ASexual_content&act… This portion of policy against sexually explicit images applies to both actual photographs as well as drawings.]" (change made by him to [[Commons:Sexual content]], which other editors had edited to forbade from applying to artworks - in other words, an expansion based on media focus) *"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&acti… We can have a long discussion and work out a new set of parameters after the cleanup project is completed. It is not acceptable to host pornography in the meantime.]" *"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&acti… I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start.]" *"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=… I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong series of deletions, including of some historical images, and then to have a careful discussion about rebuilding. That proved to be very unpopular and so I regret it. It also may have had the effect of confusing people about my own position on what to keep and what to get rid of.]" *"[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058086.html There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry.]" *"[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.]" A complete panicked purge of all potentially objectionable material, followed by its reinstatement when media focus is off of us is.... I don't even know where to begin. It treats editors as pawns in some big chess game, and, I will point out again: Wales never revealed this was about the Media until after his deletion spree. ...I'll leave it to others to comment. I'm too shocked. -Adam

5 4

[Foundation-l] Another board member statement
by Kat Walsh 12 May '10

12 May '10

First of all, this is entirely my own opinion, not that of the board, and anyone who quotes it as a statement of the WMF will get promptly crushed by a giant puzzle globe. I absolutely sign on to the board statement[1]. Commons should not be a host for media that has very little informational or educational value; works that are primarily intended to shock, arouse, or offend generally fall under this category. But as a compendium of knowledge about, well, everything, we cover topics that some people will find unsuitable or offensive. If a topic is covered at all, it should be done well and honestly, explained in the as thorough and neutral a fashion as other topics--including illustrations. The Commons community and the individual project communities have already largely recognized this, developing policies that strike compromises between being excessive and being incomplete, but of course there are still some areas that slip through the cracks. Jimmy's actions are not the Board's; I don't agree with the extent of what he was doing and I wish he had gone about it differently. Not least because I think it's been unclear what he believes personally and what the Foundation's position is and it's caused a great deal of unrest and distrust. Some of this is unavoidable: it's difficult for any of us to speak our minds, knowing that whatever we say is likely to be attributed to WMF, or at least to be unclear. He's acknowledged that his own actions went too far and resigned his rights, and I respect him for doing so. I don't think we can say with a straight face that sexual topics should be treated no differently than, say, tea pots or cute cats. I think we benefit from trying to be no more shocking than necessary--where things have comparable informative value, we should prefer the ones that will be most broadly accepted and useful. A line drawing instead of a photograph, or a medical study image instead of an amateur porn model. However, I think it is because Commons is a project that must serve every Wikimedia project in every language that it must be broadly inclusive. Media only a few projects might wish to use still belongs on Commons for their benefit. (I also think that it's not only images included in articles that are support for projects--a page of text can only have so many images before they begin to overwhelm the text or frustrate users with slow internet connections. Having a gallery of additional media illustrating different aspects of a subject adds value: roses of every color, boats of every variety, and yes, images of every sexually-transmitted disease.) I can think of few better places to go than Wikipedia for complete and informative coverage of topics that may be shocking or explicit. Most other sites which are uncensored are also intended to have entertainment or shock value, or to present a culturally or politically biased viewpoint. (I do remember being a young geek, going to the library with a small cluster of other middle-school girls, looking at books which had depictions of sex and sexual topics and giggling over them, trying not to admit that we really *didn't* know what certain things were or what they looked like, but wanted to. If the librarians ever figured out what we were doing, they never even cast a disapproving glance, for which I am grateful. It was a non-threatening context for satisfying curiosity. Wikipedia would serve the same purpose for me, now.) What shouldn't happen is people being surprised by media they didn't want to see. (And yes, Greg Maxwell and I do in fact talk about Wikimedia at the dinner table. Occasionally we even reach consensus.) I don't think filtering is effective, useful, or desirable; the reasons are pretty adequately covered elsewhere on the list and on the web. (The American Library Association--my employer--agrees with this anti-filtering stance: providers of information should provide access to the best of their abilities, and allow adult users to choose what they see.) And I am firmly against reducing the content on Wikimedia to only that which is acceptable for children. The world's knowledge contains a lot of things that are shocking, divisive, offensive, or horrific, and people should be able to learn about them, and to educate others. Not including these things doesn't make them go away--it only makes it more difficult for interested people to learn from a source that tries to be neutral and educational. I don't think Wikipedia will ever be (or should ever be) "safe", for the same reason your public library will never be, either. (One of the benefits of being free content is that anyone with sufficient motivation can produce an edited version that aligns with their values and goals; there are several existing edited Wikipedia mirrors intended for children, though none have been very successful.) What I do support are tools and procedures that make it simpler for users to choose what they see: I don't think anyone should have to avoid Wikimedia projects because they fear that they (or their children) will inadvertently see something they didn't intend to. Most people never do; links are generally not surprising, and sexually-themed media is generally only present in sexually-themed articles. (As are depictions of violence, for that matter.) But a user clicking on an unfamiliar term, or who is not aware that certain categories of content are allowed on the projects, may be in for a shock. I'm sorry if I am repeating others' points--I've been following discussions on Commons and the lists but have not yet caught up with everything![2] However, I thought as a community-elected member I should share my viewpoint, the sort of things the board is debating as we speak. Cheers, Kat [1] You know, this one: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057791.html [2] The list just had to catch fire while I was finishing my very last set of papers for law school... -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat(a)wikimedia.org * Personal: kat(a)mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask

9 12

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
by Andreas Kolbe 12 May '10

12 May '10

I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice appreciated). I'll try this again. --- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhonson(a)aol.com <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: > If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone > will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does > this job with their image browser already without the need for any > providers to actively "tag" any images. How do they do that? I have no >idea, but they do it. I would suggest a "child-safe" approach to Commons, >is simply to use the Google image browser with a "moderate filter" >setting. Try it, it works. It doesn't work if you enter Commons through the main page, or an image page, and then search through its categories. The best-thumbed pages of library books are usually the ones that have nude images; it's human nature. Commons is no different if you look at the top-1000. With respect to minors, the libertarian position that anyone should be able to see whatever they want to see is simply a fringe position. Every country legally defines some things as "harmful" to minors* and expects providers to behave in a way that prevents that harm. Arguing about whether the harm is real is an idle debate that's of no interest to teachers, say, who are legally bound by these standards and can experience professional repercussions if they fail in their duty of care. > I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their "young children" as > one message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is > deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if the child > encounters objectionable material. The child's browsing activity is > already open to five million porn site hits as it stands, Commons isn't > creating that issue. And Commons cannot solve that issue. It's the > parents responsibility to have the appropriate self-selected mechanisms > in place. And I propose that all parents who care, already *do*. So > this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete > example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. As I see it, a working filter system for adult content would relieve teachers and librarians of the headache involved in making Commons or WP available to minors. Do we have figures on how many schools or libraries in various countries block access to Wikimedia sites over concerns related to content harmful to minors? Is this a frequently-voiced concern, or are we making more of it than it is? The most sensible access control system would be one that can be set up on a physical computer used by minors. (Linking it to user account data would not work, as IP users should have normal access.) And if the same child is allowed to surf the net freely by their parents at home, then that is perfect. It is the parents' choice, and every parent handles this differently. If an outside developer were to create such a filter product, that would be great too. I just wonder how they would cope with categories and images being renamed, new categories being created, etc. And does anyone actually know how Google manages to filter out images in safe search? Andreas * See the Miller test for minors reproduced at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Pornography

1 0

[Foundation-l] (fwd) Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia
by Jay Walsh 12 May '10

12 May '10

Hi all - sharing our second press release of the day, re: the public policy initiative. Also shared via the WikimediaAnnounce-l list! Thanks, jay walsh Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia $1.2 million grant from the Stanton Foundation to support first initiative of its kind for Wikipedia SAN FRANCISCO May 11, 2010 -- The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization behind Wikipedia, today announced a new project designed to improve the quality of public policy-related articles on Wikipedia. It is the first time the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a project designed to systematically increase the quality of articles in a particular topic area. The project will be funded via a $1.2 million grant from the US-based Stanton Foundation, a long-time funding partner of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Stanton Foundation is the beneficiary foundation created in the name of the US broadcasting industry leader and media innovator, Frank Stanton. Dr. Stanton's commitment to civic education and freedom of speech carries on through his philanthropic legacy, the Stanton Foundation. "Wikipedia is a key informational resource for hundreds of millions of people," said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. "The Stanton Foundation wants to increase people's understanding of public policy-related issues, and supporting quality on Wikipedia is a great way to accomplish that goal. Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Foundation is keen to experiment with techniques for encouraging subject-matter experts to work alongside our volunteers to improve quality. This funding will enable us to do that, and I am --as always-- very grateful to the Stanton Foundation for its support." Wikipedia is written by hundreds of thousands of volunteers from around the world, and that won't change with this project. The Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative will recruit Wikipedia volunteers to work with public policy professors and students to identify topic areas for improvement, and work to make them better. Some of that work will take the form of classroom assignments, and pilot activities will begin during the 2010 fall academic semester. The project will continue through summer 2011. "I am excited to begin this work," said Frank Schulenburg, Head of Public Outreach at the Wikimedia Foundation. "There have already been professors around the world who assign their students to rewrite and improve Wikipedia articles: it's a proven model, and it benefits everyone. My hope is that this project will enable us to experiment and document best practices, so that academics and educational institutions worldwide can partner with us in helping Wikipedia to continually improve in quality and content." About the Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org http://blog.wikimedia.org The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive more than 370 million unique visitors per month, making them the 5th most popular web property worldwide (March 2010). Available in more than 270 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 15 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of more than 100,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants. Press inquiries Jay Walsh WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609 jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org (To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list, please reply to this note with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line) _______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

6 5

[Foundation-l] Upcoming Changes to the User Interface
by Howie Fung 12 May '10

12 May '10

Everyone, As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user interface for over six months now. More details may be found here <http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative> [a], but our main goal has been to reduce the barriers to participation in Wikipedia by making it easier for new contributors to edit. Since the start of the program, over 635,000 users across all Wikimedia projects have participated in this beta program - testing and providing feedback on the new interface. Roughly 80% of the test users who tried the beta are still using it (view details <http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beta_Feedback_Survey> [b]). On the English Wikipedia, almost 270,000 users have tried the test interface and about 84% of those users continue to use it. On April 5, the beta features became the default experience for users of Wikimedia Commons, a wiki similar to Wikipedia that hosts the millions of free image and media files within our projects. The summary of feedback from Commons users may be found here <http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/16/a-quick-update-on-vector-acceptance-by…> [c]. The WMF blog <http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/03/25/wikimedia-gets-ready-for-some-big-chan…> [d] and the tech blog <http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/03/the-change-in-interface-is-coming/> [e] also provide more information on this project. This new user interface will become the default for users of the English Wikipedia during the second week of May. We are currently scheduled to make the switch at 5:00am UTC on May 13. Once we make the switch, all users will begin to see the new features [1]. These features include an enhanced toolbar, a new skin (which we named 'Vector'), and a number of other features we're very excited about (FAQs may be found here <http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/What%27s_new,_questions_and_answers> [f]). If you prefer not to make the change, there will be 'Take me back' link to restore the original features. Those who would like to experience the new interface sooner may do so via the 'Try Beta' link at the top of the page. We understand that the English Wikipedia relies heavily on custom user scripts and site-specific JavaScript. Information on how to test gadgets is included in the FAQs <http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/What%27s_new,_questions_and_answers> page. If you encounter issues using the new skin, please share your feedback <[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:What%27s_new,_questions_and_answers> [g]. We're looking forward to rolling out the new features next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions/comments, please share them here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_experience_feedback> [h] -- we're trying to consolidate feedback as much as we can. Howie Wikimedia Usability Experience Team [1] Users that have opted out of the beta will still get the new features. We apologize in advance for this inconvenience, but these users may restore their features via the "Take Me Back" link. [a] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative [b] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beta_Feedback_Survey [c] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/16/a-quick-update-on-vector-acceptance-by… [d] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/03/25/wikimedia-gets-ready-for-some-big-chan… [e] http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/03/the-change-in-interface-is-coming/ [f] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/What%27s_new,_questions_and_answers [g] [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:What%27s_new,_questions_and_answers [h] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_experience_feedback

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
by Sue Gardner 11 May '10

11 May '10

Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community. ------Original Message------ From: David Gerard To: Sue Gardner GMail To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening Sent: 9 May 2010 4:21 PM On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner <susanpgardner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News. - d.

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Appoints Jing Wang and Mimi Ito to its Advisory Board
by Jay Walsh 11 May '10

11 May '10

Hi folks, sharing this announcement we sent out as a press release this morning. We'll be sending out another announcement shortly to our press list about the public policy project, which Frank discussed on our announcement list a few days ago. Best, jay walsh Begin forwarded message: > From: Jay Walsh <jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org> > Date: May 11, 2010 12:22:57 PM PDT > To: wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Appoints Jing Wang and Mimi Ito to its Advisory Board > Reply-To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Wikimedia Foundation Appoints Jing Wang and Mimi Ito to its Advisory Board > SAN FRANCISCO May 11, 2010 -- The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, today announced the appointment of two new members to its Advisory Board, Mimi Ito and Jing Wang. Mimi Ito is a cultural anthropologist with a focus on new media use among young people. Jing Wang is an author and professor of Chinese cultural studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the chair of the International Advisory Board of Creative Commons China Mainland. > Mimi Ito is a cultural anthropologist examining children and youth’s changing relationships to media and communications. She is an Associate Researcher with the University of California Humanities Research Institute with appointments in the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Informatics at the University of California, Irvine. Her research in Japan focuses on use of mobile technologies, and she has recently completed a multi-year project on digital kids and informal learning. She has authored and edited three books on kids' use of technology, and most recently, she has led a three-year collaborative ethnographic study, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, examining youth new media practices in the US, focused on gaming, digital media production, and Internet use. She has worked at the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center, the Institute for Research on Learning, Xerox PARC, and Apple Computer. She has a PhD in Education and a PhD in Anthropology, both from Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. > "Although we're seeing more and more examples of crowdsourced, non-commercial, and community produced media on the Internet today, Wikipedia continues to set the gold standard," said Mimi Ito. "At a time when so many of our past models of knowledge making and circulation are being challenged, Wikipedia provides proof of a sustainable and robust form of public media in the digital age. I'm delighted to be part of Wikimedia and the movement that it represents." > Jing Wang is an author and editor of seven books, Professor of Chinese Cultural Studies at MIT and founder and organizer of MIT’s New Media Action Lab. She is also an affiliated faculty with MIT's Comparative Media Studies. In spring 2009, Professor Wang launched an NGO 2.0 project in collaboration with two Chinese universities, three Chinese NGOs, and three corporate partners including Ogilvy & Mather China and Frog Design. The project, funded by Ford Foundation in Beijing, is designed to enhance the digital literacy of grassroots NGOs in the underdeveloped regions of China and will deliver an interactive platform complete with Web 2.0 training courses and a Chinese field guide to best practices and software of social media for nonprofits. Professor Wang started working with Creative Commmons in 2006 and serves as the Chair of the International Advisory Board of Creative Commons Mainland China. She also worked as the co-organizer of the Policy Culture Research Project with Anthony Saich at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. > "I'm excited to join Wikimedia's Advisory Board," said Jing Wang. "The challenge of increasing the diversity of participation in regions such China can be difficult to navigate. The Foundation has radically impacted access to free knowledge for everyone in the world. I'm thrilled to volunteer my time to help create richer, higher-quality information resources by increasing the diversity of voices that contribute to the projects." > "I am thrilled to welcome both Jing and Mimi to the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board," said Michael Snow, Chair of the Board of Trustees. "Both Mimi and Jing are respected academics who will bring new expertise to us in their respective areas, and I look forward to them making a substantial contribution." > The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates the volunteer-written encyclopedia with a staff of just over 30 people, created its Advisory Board in January 2007 as a mechanism for input from leaders and thinkers in fields such as education, technology, and free culture. Advisory Board members convene with Wikimedia's leadership once a year at the annual Wikimania conference, and also support the organization in their specific areas of expertise. > > The current Advisory Board membership includes: > Angela Beesley Starling (Co-founder, Wikia) > Ward Cunningham (Developer of the first wiki) > Melissa Hagemann (Open access and open education advocate, Open Society Institute/Soros foundations) > Mimi Ito (Cultural Anthropologist at University of California, Irvine) > Mitch Kapor (Founder/Co-founder Lotus Development, EFF, Mozilla Foundation) > Neeru Khosla (Co-founder, CK-12) > Teemu Leinonen (Professor, Media Lab, Aalto University) > Rebecca MacKinnon (Journalist; founder, Global Voices Online) > Wayne Mackintosh (Education specialist, Commonwealth of Learning) > Benjamin Mako Hill (Author, free software advocate) > Domas Mituzas Former Executive Secretary, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; Database Engineer, Facebook) > Roger McNamee (Venture capital, musician) > Trevor Neilson (Partner, Global Philanthropy Group) > Craig Newmark (Founder, Craigslist.org) > Florence Nibart-Devouard (Former Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; Consultant in Collaborative Media) > Achal Prabhala (Researcher and writer) > Clay Shirky (Associate Teacher, Interactive Telecommunications Program, NYU) > Jing Wang (Professor, MIT; Founder MIT New Media Action Lab) > Ethan Zuckerman (Research Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School) > > About the Wikimedia Foundation > http://wikimediafoundation.org > http://blog.wikimedia.org > The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive more than 370 million unique visitors per month, making them the 5th most popular web property worldwide (March 2010). Available in more than 270 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 15 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of more than 100,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants. > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609, @jansonw

1 0

[Foundation-l] Commons: An initial notice to reduce surprises
by Gregory Maxwell 11 May '10

11 May '10

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to…

5 4

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l May 2010