On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)frontier.com>wrote:
> On 6/22/2011 10:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > Michael Snow wrote:
> >> I thought it was reasonably understandable, even without perfect
> >> grammar, that Ting was saying that since Matt is no longer at Omidyar,
> >> if your insinuation were true, when he left the foundation would have
> >> needed to bring in someone new from Omidyar to fill "their" board seat.
> >> I figured that out, and honestly I wasn't even aware until now that Matt
> >> had left Omidyar.
> > I'm not sure it counts as an insinuation if it's true. They bought a
> Board
> > seat. Honestly, I don't remember much dispute about this point when it
> > happened in 2009 and looking back at the press releases at the time, it
> > doesn't seem as though anyone was trying to hide this point. My original
> > comment was only to say that if someone else (another group or
> organization)
> > were willing to put up $2 million or more, another Board seat would
> probably
> > become available. It's not as though the Board is incapable of changing
> its
> > own structure to meet outside demands.
> The events happened at the same time, so the connection is pretty
> obvious, but it was never a quid pro quo. While I was on the board,
> there was at least one major donor who was interested in being added to
> the board based on their financial contributions, but that person was
> not considered a good fit despite being a generous supporter of the
> organization. So no, the notion that a board seat would be available for
> money is incorrect. We felt Matt added valuable expertise and would be a
> good addition to the board, whether Omidyar was donating $1 million or
> $10 million. As he remains on the board after leaving Omidyar, I presume
> that's also why he's still there.
Michael
I cannot claim to understand what exactly is going through MzMcbride's but
it wouldn't surprise me if it was similar to what went, and still does, go
through my mind. I know for a matter of fact it is something that goes
through the minds of several respected wikimedians. It is this:
I do not think that most would ever suggest that the foundation board and
the people on it are that naive as to "sell" board seats. I certainly would
never believe that for one moment. It was that the connection (which cannot
be ignored) didn't really look good on our (the community's) part. It was
the fact that it was assumed that all was good and that it didn't matter. I
can understand that from the foundation boards perspective since i imagine
it was probably felt it was all above board and that it all stood on its own
merits. But the community sees things differently because they would be at
the mercy of any fallout that could have happened.
I honestly that Matt's appointment was a fantastic thing. He is someone with
a lot of knowledge and I wouldn't have battered a eyelid if his appointment
had been made at any other time. I think more than anything it just made me
and others feel pretty damn uncomfortable. Its down to the lack of good
faith that people have when looking in on organisations they don't know and
it could have really undermined the movements standing. Just simply through
a lack of looking at the situation from an outside perspective. My personal
feelings were compounded by the fact that the timing between a donation and
an appointment to the advisory board had been poorly thought out on another
occasion and the fact that Omidyar also provided a $4 million investment in
Wikia. It really muddies the waters thats all and its that which the
community really wants to avoid.
At the end of the day, things have moved on without incident but lets not
simply ignore this issue. I think that there is something to be learnt and
its that care really does need to be taken when repeating a venture like
this. Bad faith in the world may bite us next time.
Seddon
(Personal View)
Hi!
Itzik Edri, on the Wikimania 2011 organizing team, is in the process
of putting together a few opening videos for Wikimania and we need
your help: if anyone has photos or video from Wikimanias of the past,
could you please send on? He'd like to include them in one of the
opening videos.
If there are great ones on commons that aren't categorized under
Wikimania, send on the links. And even if they are categorized, send
your favorite ones to: itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il
The team is moving fast on this, so please send photos as soon as you can!
--
Cheers,
Moka
Moka Pantages
415.839.6885 x 635
@moka
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
> look
> better.
>
I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely
that there would be just as much criticism and/or expressions of concern if
the Board appointment had been offset by a few months as there was when the
grant and the appointment occurred close in time. Perhaps there would have
been even more criticism, for the reasons Michael outlines. The fact that
the Board opted to go ahead with the appointment, knowing full well there
was a strong possibility their motivations would be questioned, is an
argument *in favor* of Matt's candidacy for a board appointment --
specifically, the Board felt Matt added so much value that it was worth the
risk that the appointment would be criticized as being a condition of the
grant.
--Mike Godwin
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt> wrote:
> The evidence is in.
>
> <http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Portuguese_Wikipedia_…>Wanton
> vandalism
>
> Your move.
I'm not sure whose move it is, exactly, so I hope you'll forgive me if
I'm out of turn.
You've been given more chances than usual, Virgilio, but I'm afraid
enough is finally enough. The list administrators will be monitoring
your next several posts until we're convinced that you can maintain a
decent civility:trolling ratio.
Best regards,
Austin
Lets try to approach this from another angle.
Perhaps simple Wikipedia should not be considered as a different language,
but rather as a different project - a simplified Wikipedia. Because the
purpose of simple wikipedia's can be debated of course, but one potential is
to give more people understandable access to the contents. Then the
simplified version might not just be about simpler language, but also
simpler explanations (no long mathematical equations, but only that
introduction in a way that someone can understand the basics - in simple
understandable English). I would find it wonderful if I could let my little
nephew or sister read on a "simple" project without worrying they will panic
over the complexities. Partially for learning the language, partially for
getting the knowledge.
When approached like that, this would not really be a matter for the
language committee, and every language with enough potential community (!)
could get their own simple project.
Another option along the same lines could be a Simple namespace within
Wikipedia, if there would be an interface allowing you easily to focus on
just that namespace.
That way, we don't have to come up with artificial routes and explanations
to allow our communities the creation of such wonderful projects.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2011/6/21 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed response. :-)
> >
> > Milos Rancic wrote:
> >> As usual, discussion would be held on Meta. If there are serious
> >> arguments against creation of Simple French Wikipedia, we would consider
> >> them, of course. However, "arguments" like "I don't like simple
> >> projects" won't be counted.
> >
> > Well, I'm sure some of them would say that in French; would that help?
> ;-)
> >
> > I do wonder if arguments such as "Wikimedia should not be in the business
> of
> > making simplified language-versions of projects" would be counted.
>
> There is one more thing in which I agree with Michael...
>
> As he is in the group which creates BCP 47 language subtags, I told to
> him that we should get generic subtags for simple languages. His
> response was that we should think about it when the time comes, not before.
>
> I think that we will wait for some time, maybe even long, before we get
> a valid request for Simple French Wikipedia. When that time comes, we'll
> think about details.
>
> I mean, there are other things to be done and we've already spent a lot
> of time in it. The only reason why we've done so is to normalize the
> situation. I started with the position "we should recommend to the Board
> to close all simple projects" during the Berlin meeting. However,
> normalization went into other direction and I am fine with it, too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus
("friends of the court") brief in Golan v. Holder, a case of great
importance before the Supreme Court that will affect our understanding of
the public domain for years to come. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder. The EFF is representing the
Wikimedia Foundation in addition to the American Association of Libraries,
the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Association of
Research Libraries, the University of Michigan Dean of Libraries, and the
Internet Archive.
This case raises critical issues as to whether Congress may withdraw works
from the public domain and throw them back under a copyright regime. In
1994, in response to the U.S. joining of the Berne Convention, Congress
granted copyright protection to a large body of foreign works that the
Copyright Act had previously placed in the public domain. Affected cultural
goods probably number in the millions, including, for example, Metropolis
(1927), The Third Man (1949), Prokofiev's Peter in the Wolf, music by
Stravinsky, paintings by Picasso, drawings by M.C. Escher, films by Fellini,
Hitchcock, and Renoir, and writings by George Orwell, Virginia Woolf, and
J.R.R. Tolkien.
The petitioners are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film
archivists, and motion picture distributors who depend upon the public
domain for their livelihood. They filed suit in 2001, pointing out that
Congress exceeded its power under the Copyright Clause and the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They eventually won at the district
court level, but that decision was overturned on appeal in the Tenth
Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court - which rarely grants review - did so
here.
Petitioners filed their brief last week, and you can find it here:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6684. We are expecting a number of
parties to file "friends of the court" briefs. The EFF's brief can be
found here: http://www.eff.org/cases/golan-v-holder .
The Wikimedia Foundation joined the EFF brief in light of the tremendously
important role that the public domain plays in our mission to "collect and
develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain,
and to disseminate it effectively and globally." We host millions of works
in the public domain and are dependent on thousands of volunteers to search
out and archive these works. Wikimedia Commons alone boasts approximately 3
million items in these cultural commons. To put it bluntly, Congress cannot
be permitted the power to remove such works from the public domain whenever
it finds it suitable to do so. It is not right - legally or morally. The
Copyright Clause expressly requires limits on copyright terms. The First
Amendment disallows theft from the creative commons. Such works belong to
our global knowledge. For this reason, we join with the EFF and many others
to encourage the Court to overturn a law that so threatens our public domain
- not only with respect to the particular works at issue but also with
respect to the bad precedent such a law would set for the future.
We anticipate the Court will reach a decision sometime before July 2012.
--
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
Ah ok.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:17 PM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry not sure how that happened.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Mono mium <monomium(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please don't spam the list. Kthxbai.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM, James Heilman via LinkedIn
>> <member(a)linkedin.com> wrote:
>>> LinkedIn
>>> ------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> James Heilman requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Srikant,
>>>
>>> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
>>>
>>> - James
>>>
>>> Accept invitation from James Heilman
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-gpanplzs-19/kEGYngBeZsro1F93qKeRGrJetgIrKF…
>>>
>>> View invitation from James Heilman
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-gpanplzs-19/kEGYngBeZsro1F93qKeRGrJetgIrKF…
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> DID YOU KNOW you can conduct a more credible and powerful reference check using LinkedIn? Enter the company name and years of employment or the prospective employee to find their colleagues that are also in your network. This provides you with a more balanced set of feedback to evaluate that new hire.
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-gpanplzs-19/rsr/inv-27/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> (c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
LinkedIn
------------
James Heilman requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
------------------------------------------
Srikant,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- James
Accept invitation from James Heilman
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-gpanplzs-19/kEGYngBeZsro1F93qKeRGrJetgIrKF…
View invitation from James Heilman
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-gpanplzs-19/kEGYngBeZsro1F93qKeRGrJetgIrKF…
------------------------------------------
DID YOU KNOW you can conduct a more credible and powerful reference check using LinkedIn? Enter the company name and years of employment or the prospective employee to find their colleagues that are also in your network. This provides you with a more balanced set of feedback to evaluate that new hire.
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-gpanplzs-19/rsr/inv-27/
--
(c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation
As a follow up to the discussion about Bitcoins (during the board elections)
& accepting them as donations... I thought this article by the EFF
explaining why they no longer accept BC sets out some interesting
arguments: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin
Tom