The Wikimedia announce list has foundation-l as reply-to: I just
replied to a mail Pavel send to the announce list and got this message:
Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to
the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please send an email to
foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post
to the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are
archived and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential
communication to make, please rather emailinfo(a)wikimedia.org
That's very annoying and confusing. I now had to subscribe to a list on which I don't want to be to get my message through. I propose to either:
* Set a different reply-to: for the announce list
* Don't auto reject messages
Op 29-4-2011 18:08, Pavel Richter schreef:
> Hi all,
> please find the monthly report for Wikimedia Germany for March 2011 on
> We are using a new translation service, so it would be great if you
> have some feedback regarding the language. Any other comments are
> welcome as well, of course.
Could you include the report in the future instead of just a link?
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Pavel Richter
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Eisenacher Straße 2
> 10777 Berlin
> Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
> www.wikimedia.de <http://www.wikimedia.de>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> **** Unterstützen Sie Freies Wissen mit einer SMS. Senden Sie einfach
> WIKI an 81190. Mit 5 Euro sichern Sie so die Verfügbarkeit und
> Weiterentwicklung der Wikipedia. ****
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
> Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> 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:
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
As you may be aware, we accepted with regret the resignation of one of the
members of the ombudsman commission. Herbythyme will be missed. However,
given the need to fill the seat, I asked for volunteers and received several
very promising candidates, so this seemed a very good time to introduce a
modification to the process.
Instead of nominating one person for the commission, I'm nominating two: one
to serve the unexpired term, and one alternate, who will serve as a
non-voting advisor to the commission this year, and then remain on for
another full term. This provides us with knowledge transfer from one
commission to another, and also allows us to get the maximum number of
highly qualified candidates the experience of serving on the commission.
The user that I am nominating to fill the unexpired term is [[User:Pundit]],
of the Polish Wikipedia. He serves as an administrator, a mediator, and a
bureaucrat there. He also is a contributor to the English Wikipedia and to
Wikimedia Commons. Pundit does not currently hold checkuser permissions
anywhere, so he will not be required to lay them down.
The user filling the role of alternate, and continuing to a second term on
the commission is [[User:Dweller]]. Dweller is a bureaucrat, administrator,
and oversighter on the English Wikipedia. He is also a prolific content
creator. Dweller also does not currently hold checkuser permissions, and so
will not be required to lay them down. It is envisioned that the alternate
will not be required to surrender their checkuser tool (if they have it)
until they are placed on the commission as a full, voting member. It seems
unfair to deprive the wikis of their service for two years. However, the
alternate is pledged to recuse from matters on which he has a personal
conflict of interest.
Please join me in thanking them for their service. We will be requesting
rights changes shortly. These two join the other members of the commission,
[[User:Sir48]], [[User:FloNight]], [[User:Mwpnl]], and [[User:Thogo]].
Thank you to everyone who generously volunteered for this position.
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations)
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2010 Picture of the Year
competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which
images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2010. Any user registered
at a Wikimedia wiki since 2010 or prior with more than 200 edits as of 1
January 2011 (UTC) is welcome to vote. Check your eligibility now. If
you meet the criteria, you are able to vote.
Nearly 800 images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the
international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered
in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to
breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant
images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems,
diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human
portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two
rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many
images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall
will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number
of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become
the Picture of the Year.
To see the candidate images just go to:
Wikimedia Commons is interested in hearing your opinions on our featured
images of 2010. The deadline for first round voting is the 4th of May at
Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
This will be happening shortly.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Subject: IRC office hours this Thursday, April 28th at 17:00 UTC
Just a quick heads up that Sue will be having one of her regular IRC office
hours in #wikimedia-office this Thursday, April 28th at 17:00 UTC.
Instructions about how to join etc. are on Meta.
As for topics, we were thinking that it might be nice to talk about our
continuing research at the Foundation on new editor retention. Other topics
(Perhaps Wikimania submissions since the deadline is impending?) are welcome
too. We look forward to chatting!
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
I unofficially appointed myself to be the "Editor Survey ambassador"
to the Hebrew Wikipedia. For a few days i helped people fill it and
gathered some feedback.
Now people are complaining that they can't see the banner. I tried
telling them to clean the cookies and it didn't help; i tried it
myself, and it doesn't help me either.
Is it disabled? I don't remember any notice about it.
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
>From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
versus the use of the word "charity":
> Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official
> names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York
> Foundation for the Arts, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Despite their names, all of them are charities;
> they rely on donations from others to sustain themselves and the programs
> and services they offer. On second reference, any one of them should be
> referred to as a "charity," not a "foundation."
It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the
"New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would
perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
>>> Foundation is not a legal term
>> "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted
>> with "public charity".
> Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all
I'm not sure there's anything to clarify. The author of that article
was obviously referencing the IRS distinction of "private foundation"
vs. "public charity", in which the WMF clearly fits under "public
charity" (at least, according to their tax filings and determination
letter they do, see for instance
If you asked anyone who is familiar with US tax law for tax-exempt
organizations what the difference is "between a foundation and a
charity", that's what they're going to think of. However, I think
it's nearly equally clear that the definitions of these terms in the
US Code do not coincide exactly (or even very much at all) with common
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, "public charity" is a term invented
by (or at least popularized by) the IRS, which doesn't appear in the
actual tax code. It could just as well be "private foundation" vs.
"public foundation", and in fact the term "public foundation" does
have quite a fair bit of use.
Anyway, my purpose in pointing out that section of IRS code was to
explain what the author was talking about. I don't think it shows
that the author was right. In fact, I think the author was putting
far too much emphasis on some relatively obscure portions of the
Internal Revenue Code, instead of plain language meanings, on which
the status of the WMF is much more ambiguous. To the extent the
phrases "foundation" and "charity" have gone astray, they have gone
astray due to the non-plain-language definitions given by the Internal
Revenue Code and the Internal Revenue Service.