This mailing list needs to add one or more new moderators, as
Wikimedia Canada has elected a board.
Its admin password has been forgotten, and needs to be reset as well.
(I seem to remember that it was a stereotypically cornball Canadian
reference, but what, not sure. Something like maplebeaver, or
How would this be done? Who would be the contact? Feel free to reply
off list, as to not further inconvenience the rest of the list
Funny, secret ballots are actually meant to discourage cabalism, voting for
favors and voter intimidation.
But yeah, with both lack of turnout and lack of information on candidates
they do tend to make things easy to manipulate. I really don't think that
going to an open ballot is right though because the problems can better be
solved elsewhere and once they are it will provide a valuable safeguard to
maintain secret ballots.
The nomination process might be one area we can counter the problem.
Nominations can be public and with some degree of support needed to stand
for election the names of editors endorsing a candidate can be very telling
as to what their interests are.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 12:16 PM, "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
Hello, fellow Wikimedians.
On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your
input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election
(2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election
began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit
counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive
members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the
community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits
within 6 months.
This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more
than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server
administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This
still does not account for all community members though, and we would like
your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and
how to quantify other types of contributions).
In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and
others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up:
* Advisory Board members
* Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)
** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the
* University students in the Ambassadors program
* Researchers with access to the research user right
So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are
the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all
right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be
eligible to vote?
Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
to the board elections list,
board-elections(a)lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
thoughts on the matter!
On behalf of the Election Committee,
Jon Harald Søby
On 18/03/11 23:28, Jan Kucera (Kozuch) wrote:
> Hi there,
> why is the Foundation so passive??? I have been since almost 5 years
> with various Wikimedia projects and I can really see NO PROGRESS from
> the side of the Foundation but more employees, 2 new blogs, new
> Vector skin and maybe MediaWiki performance tweaks.
I am one of the volunteer software developer for MediaWiki.
Those are all important progresses! Do not forget back in 2006 the
foundation was really small, it is the year we had to support an
ENORMOUS growth of popularity, since them, we are still as popular and
the website is still up.
The blogs makes easier to follow what is happening
Vector skin has been build up following a professional usability study.
The resource loader will save bandwidth, loading time and already let
the developers enhance the site easily.
For software development, do not forget some months ago there was a
great community crisis between staff and volunteers. Looks like we have
this sorted out, 1.17 is live and a release is coming.
> My participation
> declined radically, because I can not feel any real support from the
> foundation. It is not 2006 anymore. Look at what other websites have
> done in 5 years and you realize they have undergone major redesigns.
> And as someone wrote here lately Wikipedia still seems so 2005. This
> is OK for an encyclopedia, but unfortunately the way volunteers work
> is stuck in 2005 too...
I agree with you: overall the website interface looks old. The Vector
skin is a first step in enhancement, we now have to add new features to
it to make it more like a 2011 website. One possibility would be to
list the best gadgets users have developed and merge them in the
MediaWiki software for the benefit of everyone.
If you get other enhancement ideas, please submit them to bugzilla. If
you know PHP, try hacking in MediaWiki. We have developers around to
help you :-)
<snip LQT, fellowship>
> Sophisticated decision mechanism simply does not exist on a community
> level, and those on Foundation level are of little importance. Is it
> really that hard to launch an ideas bank (at ideas.wikimedia.org for
> example) to boil down what the community really needs instead of
> letting volunteers have endless discussions in wiki-style? Will
> someone finally realize that wiki is not the holy-grail of
> "collaboration" and maybe other tools are needed too?
An idea website much like the Dell site http://www.ideastorm.com/ or
something like http://www.reddit.com/ would be a great thing. If it
exists as an open source software, we can probably have it installed
somewhere for testing.
> Videos are still not being offered in various bitrates which makes
> them unusable within the encyclopedia, etc. etc. There has been
> literally no progress at all from an established editor point of view
> and that is very depriving. Very little is done in supporting new
> projects creation, Data Commons being an example.
Saving a video and offering it in multiples bitrates require two things:
- disk space
LOT OF DISK SPACE. I mean in the Petabyte or even Exabyte scale ranges.
Totally different with your local computer or our current system, it
needs software engineering to answer "simple" questions like:
- what happens when a datacenter goes down
- how do you backup the data
- what are the legal impacts of having data in such or such country
- how much space is required 3 months after deployment, 18 months and
- how do we make it scales?
The good point is that was already identified as an action and is a work
Bandwidth, the main datacenter is in Florida wich does not have that
many routes to the internet. The new datacenter (nothing easy to build
up) will be in Ashburn, Virginia which is one of the major world
internet exchange point in the world. I had been given the privilege of
looking at the new architecture, and trust me, it is going to be an
awesome structure for the future.
> I wish I had the power to change all these things, but unfortunately
> I do not. Of course, if I do not want to have endless discussion in
> wiki (or mailing list) -style...
You do have the power! The world as immensely changed in the last few
years thanks to the internet. Internet is just about connecting people
and every little step is a change. Get an idea, get community members
sharing it then you can markets it, find developers and get it applied
to the live site.
Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for
Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller
of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria
to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's
first come, first served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at
22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See
Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the
400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible.
I agree with Harel, there are huge numbers of editors who are entitled
to vote and don't do so. I think we put some effort into welcoming
newbies and forget that becoming part of the community is a process
and state of mind rather than a single event.
I think that a bot message from Jimbo or the foundation thanking
people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to
vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the
You'd need to phrase it carefully though:)
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:32:35 +0200
> From: Harel Cain <harel.cain(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people,
> we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already
> entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to
> vote are expected to really make use of it.
> The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a
> small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could
> be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and
> meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the
> home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the
> elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I
> anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your
> The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections
> more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to
> take part in them.
> Harel Cain
> Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel
Somebody just contacted me to let me know that he thinks Google is
experimenting with their search result options: one option is to allow
users to block Wikipedia articles from showing up in Google's search
results. Sometimes this option comes up and sometimes is doesn't. Has
anyone else seen this? Does anybody know anything about this?
Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 2/25/11 3:11 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, <dex2000(a)pc.dk> wrote:
>>> I think it could also be considered to divide our huge language wikis
>>> into smaller parts. The existing WikiProjects could be made virtual wikis
>>> with their own admins, recent changes etc. That way, each project is in
>>> fact like a small wiki to which the newbie could sign up according to
>>> 'hers' area of interest and where the clarrity and friendlier atmosphere
>>> of the smaller wikis could prevail.
>> This is the best solution, in my opinion.
> Yes, the larger wikis need to become WikiProject-centric. First step in
> doing this would be to create a WikiProject namespace. Second step would
> be to make WikiProject article tagging/assessment part of the software
> instead of template-based.
I can see how those would be useful steps, however I think those steps
are part of a 10 year plan.
A 10 year plan will be overrun by events.
We need a much more direct plan.
I recommend breaking enWP apart by finding easy chunks and moving them
to a separate instance, and having readonly copies on the main project
like we do for File: pages from Commons.
IMO, the simplest and most useful set of articles to break apart is BLPs.
The criteria is really simple, and those articles already have lots of
policy differences around them.
By the time we have perfected this system with the BLPs, the community
will have come to understand the costs/benefits of moving other
clusters of articles to separate projects, and we'll see other
clusters of articles migrated to sub-projects.
btw, this idea is not new, but maybe its time has come.