Welcome HaeB! Great to have you on-board. :-) I've been waiting for
this announcement -- lots of stuff to do!
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Andrea Zanni started a lovely thread elsewhere asking about how to
help the Open Access movement in Italy, with some good replies
(below). Forwarding to foundation-l as it is relevant to this list,
and linked to recent discussions here about how to fix the sad state
of closed journals. [also perhaps appropriate for wikisource,
commons, and wikipedia, which all get mentioned as examples for
collaborations]
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:36 PM
Dear all,
thanks for bringing me into this conversation, Melissa.
I see a number of areas in which the OA and WMF communities could join
forces, and several of these are relevant to the newly approved
project. None of these points is specific to Italy or Italian, but
although Italian had not been on my radar there yet (basically because
I can only understand it, not produce it myself), I agree that
addressing them together with existing communities with overlapping
interests is a good idea.
Let me outline a few:
(1) the WMF would benefit from feedback from the OA community on the
draft of a WMF policy on OA and open data. It currently exists in two
variants - a general mandate modeled after the NIH policy (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-ac…
) and a scheme more cast in terms of practical implementation (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WMF_support ) that takes into
account different degrees of WMF support for research projects (a
distinction not made at the NIH).
(2) both sides would benefit from a broader reuse of OA materials -
especially images - on WMF projects. I have collected some basic stats
on this at http://species-id.net/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Slides/Reuse-of-OA-on-Wikim…
and think it would be very good to have a simple way of uploading all
suitably licensed OA materials to Commons or a sister directory (e.g.
http://figshare.com/ or similar). On a related note, the annual image
contest at Commons (for latest issue, see
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/29/commons-picture-year-winners-2011/
) features very few images that came from an OA source (so far, I only
found one - http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:Culex_sp_larvae.png
; a finalist in 2007). Having some more systematic approach to getting
OA-sourced images featured as picture of the day/ month/ year would
certainly be good.
(3) the articles on OA and related topics are generally not in a good
shape, and typically not even assessed for quality. For the English
Wikipedia, I have started building a skeleton for what is to become an
overview of what OA-related articles would be desirable to have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mietchen/OA_catalogue . Turning this
into a set of coherent articles will require something like a Task
force, even though the most relevant ones do not seem to be very
active these days, and there is not much of collaboration in this
regard across different WMF projects or even languages. Here, having
OA people involved across projects or languages would certainly be
beneficial.
(4) I think publishers (not just OA ones, actually) would benefit from
having a closer look at the RNA families Track at the journal RNA
Biology (which is not OA, btw), in which authors are required to
submit, for manuscripts reporting on new types of RNA families, the
draft for a corresponding Wikipedia article, which will be peer
reviewed along with the manuscript (see
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/rnabiology/guidelines/ and
search for Wikipedia). Once the paper is published, the Wikipedia
article goes live, naturally citing the journal article, thus
providing the journal with exposure at a highly visible platform.
Similar partnerships are possible with other WMF projects (e.g.
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Collaboration_with_ZooKeys_an…
).
(5) I think peer review in any journal (and at funding agencies, but
that is another story) would benefit from being conducted in the open
(cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/473452b ). One possibility here is to
post the reviews of accepted papers in public (e.g.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/8/62/prepub ), another to have
the manuscript posted in public and to invite public comments along
with public formal reviews (e.g.
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/4/2959/2007/bgd-4-2959-2007-discussio…
). This latter approach works only for publishers that accept green OA
in some form, but it works best for gold OA. Having some more OA
publishers experiment with such a system could, over time, develop
into something like "wiki-style" review at Scholarpedia (cf.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Help:Reviewers#Wiki-style_peer-review
), i.e. that reviewers edit the draft directly rather than commenting
on it. With such a system in place at (at least some) OA journals,
researchers could well be more motivated to contribute to
collaborative projects like those run by the WMF (see also the survey
at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expert_participation_survey ).
Also related to the issue of motivation: Participants at the recent
Open Science Workshop at OAI7 voted "Change the way scientists are
evaluated" to the top of the agenda (cf.
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/2011-July/000840.html ),
and joining forces with WMF (and funders) to get wiki contributions
included in the picture of scientific evaluation could well be
worthwhile too.
Expansion of the approach mentioned in (3) to languages other than
English is anticipated (though for the moment only to those three that
I can write articles in). For example, for the German Wikimedia
chapter's WikiConvention later this year, I have proposed a session in
preparation for Open Access Week (cf.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiConvention/Themensammlung#Wikime…
), and this could certainly be coordinated with related activities on
the Italian end, or elsewhere.
During OA week, one could think of highlighting OA-derived content on
WMF projects, or having collaborative writing sessions on OA-related
topics, or having prizes for contributions along these lines.
Looking forward to further deepening of the discussion,
Daniel
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Melissa Hagemann <mhagemann(a)osi-dc.org> wrote:
> Hi SJ and Aubrey,
>
> Wonderful to hear that there is interest in Italy to find ways to bring together the WMF and OA communities.
>
< I'm adding Daniel Mietchen to the thread.... For years, I've thought
the OA and WMF communities had much in common and we should be doing
more to properly introduce the communities and build synergies between
them. So perhaps Daniel can help to brainstorm about what more could
be done in Italy and then Italy could become an example of what can be
accomplished in this area.
>
> In general, I think that by raising awareness of OA (and specifically the materials which are freely available through OA) within the WMF community, we could encourage more OA resources to be used as references in Wikipedia articles. In addition, Wikimedians could become powerful allies in the OA movement, helping to make more content freely available through OA, so it could be used in more WMF projects.
>
> With regards to Italy, Aubrey, you mentioned that you are in close contact with many folks working on OA there, so you probably know about these resources, but I thought it would be helpful to share some info on those I've worked with in the past as well as current OA projects:
>
> - Paola Gargiulo (p.gargiulo(a)caspur.it) - you may already know Paola, but I think she's great and would probably enjoy being part of this conversation.
> - Portal for Italian Electronic Scholarly Literature in Institutional Archives - a service provider to Italian OA scholarly and research content; collects and provides access to current information on OA in Italy and abroad http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi
> - OA Week Wiki in Italian - http://wiki.openarchives.it/index.php/Pagina_principale
> - OA Mailing list in Italian: http://openarchives.it/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia
>
> Excited to see what we can do to make Italy an example of what can be achieved through collaboration between the OA and WMF communities.
>
> Best,
> Melissa
>
> Melissa Hagemann
> Senior Program Manager
> Information Program
> Open Society Foundations
As many of you know, the Wikimedia Foundation has an Audit Committee which
represents the Board in oversight of financial and accounting issues,
including planning, reporting, audits, and internal controls (see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_committee for details). The
Committee serves for one year, from July through the late Spring when the
Foundation files its annual tax return in the U.S. This past year the
committee included members from the broad community, from chapters, and from
the Foundation's Board (including me as Committee Chair).
We’ve recently started forming the 2011-2012 Audit Committee and as we did
last year would like to call for volunteers from the community. The time
commitment is modest, as far as Wikimedia goes: review the Foundation’s
financial practices and financial statements/filings, and then participate
in three or four conference calls during the year with the staff and our
independent auditors at KPMG (see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_charter for full duties). The
primary requirement for membership is “financial literacy”, some kind of
professional experience with finance, accounting or audit. As it is a
governance and oversight role, Committee members cannot serve under a
pseudonym, undergo the same basic background check as others in WMF
financial oversight roles, and must make the same conflict of interest
disclosures required of the Foundation's Board.
If you’re interested in serving on the Committee, please email me at stu
<at> wikimedia.org with your resume/CV and your thoughts on how you think
you could contribute. Thanks.
-s
===============
Stuart West
Board Vice-Chair & Treasurer
Wikimedia Foundation
stu(a)wikimedia.org
One thing I find irritating and complex about our structure is the
proliferation of small wikis. Now I've no objection to the idea that
we have a wiki for every language on Earth, though where languages are
mutually intelligible such as the major dialects of English it seems
sensible to me that we combine them in one wiki - if necessary with
spelling and alphabet being subject to user preference.
But I see no reason why ten wiki, Strategy and the various wikimanias
each need their own wiki as opposed to being projects within meta.
On a broader and more radical note, why do we need separate wikis for
wikiquote, wikiversity, wikipedia wikinews and wiktionary? Surely each
of those could be separate namespaces within a language wiki?
This would make it much easier when people create an article on
wikipedia that is really a wiktionary or wikinews article as one could
just move it. It would immediately reduce the number of userpages,
watchlists and usertalk pages that one needed to maintain to one per
language (plus meta and commons). It would also foster cooperation
between editors across what are currently different projects if you
had one wiki for each language, as individual wikiprojects would now
work across what are currently quite separate news, quote and pedia
projects.
WereSpielChequers
Thank you, Teele! I like this style of report -- it is very easy to read. SJ
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Teele Vaalma <teele.vaalma(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikimedia Estonia report April-June 2011
>
> ==Meetings==
>
> *April 1. Started regular biweekly wiki-meetings in Tartu Public Library.
> Following meetings were held on April 15, April 29, May 13, and May 27.
> Sadly participation was very low, starting time has to be changed in the
> autumn.
>
> *April 9. Board meeting via Skype.
>
> *June 4. Board meeting in Tallinn. There were 9 chapter members present
> (incl. 3 board members). (blog post:
> http://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/juunikuu-juhatuse-koosolek/)
>
> ==Other==
>
> *April 10. Started our chapter blog. (in Estonian,
> http://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/)
>
> *April 20. Wikimedia Estonia and National Heritage Board signed an agreement
> concerning cooperation on Wiki Loves Monuments contest in Estonia.
>
> *May 3-7. European Year of Volunteering Tour in Tallinn. Wikipedian Andres
> Luure gave a talk on May 3 and chapter members were representing Estonian
> Wikipedia and our chapter on May 5-6. (blog post:
> http://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/vabatahtlike-mess-ja-talgud/)
>
> *May 7. „Let’s do it“-day in Estonia. Chapter members took part in several
> events in different locations in Estonia and promoted especially the Wiki
> Loves Monuments contest. (see the previous link)
>
> *May 11-12. Teele Vaalma gave two talks on Wikipedia to students of Tartu
> Vocational Education Center.
>
> *May 13-15. Raul Kern and Robert Reisman were Estonian representatives at
> the Hackathon and Wiki Loves Monuments meeting in Berlin.
>
> *May 20. Award ceremony in Tallinn for the winners of Wikipedia article
> contest about Nordic countries cooperation that was held March 23 – April
> 30. (blog post:
> http://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/pohjamaade-koostoo-teemalise…)
>
> *June 8. Ivo Kruusamägi had a meeting with Estonian Institute about possible
> cooperation between the Institute and Wikimedia Estonia.
>
> *May 1 – June 10. Translation contest in Estonian Wikipedia. A list was
> compiled, that contained most important articles (from 1000 articles that
> every Wikipedia should have), which are good or featured in some other
> language version. Contestants chosed from that list articles they wanted to
> translate. On June 17 winners were announced. (blog post:
> http://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/vikipeedia-tolketalgud-loppe…)
>
> ==Press==
>
> *May 1. Wikipedian Ave Maria Mõistlik talked about her contributions in a
> radio broadcast „Kogu ja tegu“ (literally ’collection and deed’).
>
> *May 2. Press release for Wiki Loves Monuments.
> (http://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/pressiteade-fotovoistlus-kul…)
>
> *May 3. News item about the Translation contest
> (http://www.postimees.ee/429055/eestikeelses-vikipeedias-algasid-tolketalgud/)
>
> *May 5. Longer article about the Translation contest
> (http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/estonia/rita-niineste-vikipeedia-loob-kohta-selle…)
>
> *May 27. News item about regular meetings in Tartu.
> (http://www.tartupostimees.ee/451044/tartus-peetakse-vikipeedia-taiendamise-…)
>
> *June 29. Article about Wiki Loves Monuments in Estonia (Russian)
> (http://www.gazeta.ee/?p=19816).
>
> --
> Teele Vaalma
> MTÜ Wikimedia Eesti
> teele.vaalma(a)gmail.com
> +372 5814 5381
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
We seem to be conflating three different things here,
1 Rebranding Wikipedia and possibly other projects, this is a
perennial idea that I can't see ever convincing me or most
wikimedians. I don't see this as being particularly relevant to the
idea of merging wikis, so may I suggest that if people want to bring
up the idea they differentiate it from the merge wikis thread by
giving it a relevant subject such as Rebrand Wikipedia? They might
also want to consider the arguments against this at
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Change_the_name_of_the_Wik…
as there is not much point reviving an idea unless you have a response
to the known fatal flaws in it.
2 Merging wikis where we have overlapping groups of editors working on
different projects within the same language. So the Klingon
Wikisource, WikiQuote, Wikinews and so forth would become different
spaces within one wiki giving editors the benefit of single userpages
and in many cases a larger crowd of editors. Some editors have
objected to this on the not unreasonable grounds that some small
projects would feel swamped if they were put in the same wiki as one
of the large projects, and John vandenburg raised the issue that
policy in such a wiki would necessarily be more complex than if we
continued to have at least one wiki per project. I still think that we
have much to gain here and especially that the wisdom of crowds
requires crowds, but I'd like to suggest that we trial this by having
some consenting languages work this way and see how well it could be
made to work.
3 Merging wikis where we have the confusing situation of multiple
wikis for the same project. So ten, strategy and outreach are all
within the scope of Meta and as several people have said there is no
benefit and considerable disbenefit in running them as separate wikis.
Merging them into meta should be an easy and uncontentious win.
Startegy and Outreach perhaps need their own spaces within Meta in the
same way that Research has, and perhaps for ten we need a "meetup"
space .
WereSpielChequers
On 5 July 2011 13:00, <foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Merge wikis (Thomas Morton)
> 2. Re: Merge wikis (Pharos)
> 3. Re: Merge wikis (John Vandenberg)
> 4. Re: Merge wikis (Pharos)
> 5. Re: Merge wikis (John Vandenberg)
> 6. The Signpost ? Volume 7, Issue 27 ? 4 July 2011
> (Wikipedia Signpost)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 00:11:50 +0100
> From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <-6316025283354768456@unknownmsgid>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 4 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Juergen Fenn <juergen.fenn(a)gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 02.07.11 14:17 schrieb Alec Conroy:
>>>> if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know
>>>> "Wikipedia" but not "Wikimedia". The most simple and reasonable way is
>>>> to use the famous brand, not to invest in "Wikimedia".
>>>
>>>
>>> There's an even bigger opportunity here--
>>> Make a brand new brand name that captures the ideology better than
>>> Wikipedia-Mediawiki-Wikimedia.
>>> Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, Mediawiki's the software, Wikimedia's the
>>> ISP-- and none of those names capture the "spirit of the movement".
>>> Coming up with a good brand name and associating it with our movement
>>> and our foundation-- whether the foundation ever changes its name
>>> formally or not, there should be a brand name for "Wikimedia
>>> projects, their users, and their allies". And unlike our other brand
>>> names, this one should actually be inspiring to people who don't
>>> already know what it means.
>>
>> I beg your pardon, but Ziko and WereSpielChequers are absolutely right
>> here. You won't manage to introduce another brand name after ten years
>> of Wikipedia. Even if you tried, it would be to no avail. It was a huge
>> mistake to introduce the sister projects under a different brand and to
>> keep them apart from Wikipedia proper. After all, it did not foster
>> creativity and diversity, but it rather split the movement into parts
>
> I disagree, speaking from a position of some experience.
>
> Wikipedia was not marketed well, per se. It was an innovative ANC
> exciting idea, launched at the right time to the right audience.
>
> Even to this date; very little serious marketing had been done.
>
> Now. With that said I agree - there is not a lot of point trying to
> establish a new brand. But WikiMedia is worth pursuing as an umbrella.
> This is a new decade, the internet has moved on (in a way it could be
> said to have left us behind, and we survive by being well known) and
> this is the perfect opportunity to work on the brand.
>
> Im very hopeful the board has something to input here; this is
> squarely in their ballpark and we need quick and pivotal action on it.
>
> This is not at all a re-branding issue but one of brand-extension -
> something any marketer would be on top of!
>
> I do agree that more interaction should be fostered (although
> independence is a good thing for projects with radically different
> aims) and that smaller projects should be offered the opportunity to
> hijack wikipedias brand to Market themselves.
>
> But remember they are still a little behind WP in age, in a few years
> they will hopefully pervade our consciousness in the same way.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:38:56 -0400
> From: Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAJcrdm4uRzmmKCZVkJ1EDVxY+9a_9qWUYPTqyhaRmLoHDpzvBA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 07/01/2011 11:52 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>> One thing I find irritating and complex about our structure is the
>>> proliferation of small wikis. Now I've no objection to the idea that
>>> we have a wiki for every language on Earth, though where languages are
>>> mutually intelligible such as the major dialects of English ?it seems
>>> sensible to me that we combine them in one wiki - if necessary with
>>> spelling and alphabet being subject to user preference.
>>>
>>> But I see no reason why ten wiki, Strategy and the various wikimanias
>>> each need their own wiki as opposed to being projects within meta.
>>>
>>> On a broader and more radical note, why do we need separate wikis for
>>> wikiquote, wikiversity, wikipedia wikinews and wiktionary? Surely each
>>> of those could be separate namespaces within a language wiki?
>>>
>>> This would make it much easier when people create an article on
>>> wikipedia that is really a wiktionary or wikinews article as one could
>>> just move it. It would immediately reduce the number of userpages,
>>> watchlists and usertalk pages that one needed to maintain to one per
>>> language (plus meta and commons). It would also foster cooperation
>>> between editors across what are currently different projects if you
>>> had one wiki for each language, as individual wikiprojects would now
>>> work across what are currently quite separate ?news, quote and pedia
>>> projects.
>>
>> Thanks for raising this issue. Previously discussed system of redirects
>> and Incubator Extension [1] would help not just to the Incubator, but to
>> the languages with smaller amount of speakers, as well as to Meta forks.
>> So, instead of having numerous meta wikis, we could have just one
>> (Meta), with separate namespaces, which would get redirects. Thus,
>> namespace "Strategy:" could be strategy.wikimedia.org; namespace
>> "Research" could be research.wikimedia.org etc.
>>
>> [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/235020?page=last
>
>
> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the best path
> forward to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:02:17 +1000
> From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO9U_Z4oPd=AakPPe4VgjxyrYhBvvdy55V6i30g7cDd79Sabxg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> ..
>>
>>
>> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
>> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the best path
>> forward to me.
>
> Or we could just leave the sister projects alone. That is also a viable option.
>
> For the English projects, clear separation between the projects is
> necessary so that they can grow different cultures. The sister
> projects are progressing nicely enough.
>
> It is much easier to tell a potential transcriber about the Wikisource
> project, as opposed to trying to warn them about all the policies of
> Wikipedia, most of which have no bearing on transcribing.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 01:12:18 -0400
> From: Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAJcrdm7qK7M9vMiRgC_sW5FehYAdddm_jXvt1h=gxOXo6b2Ejw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ..
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
>>> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the best path
>>> forward to me.
>>
>> Or we could just leave the sister projects alone. ?That is also a viable option.
>
> [snip]
>
> Clarify: I mean new namespaces are the best way forward for our
> Meta-type content ("Strategy:", "Outreach:", "Research:", etc).
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:11:11 +1000
> From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO9U_Z5Pw32msoTeOQDLNvpE1OGTkEsYp7TmMHq3TnvSf9VX9g(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
>>>> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the best path
>>>> forward to me.
>>>
>>> Or we could just leave the sister projects alone. ?That is also a viable option.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Clarify: I mean new namespaces are the best way forward for our
>> Meta-type content ("Strategy:", "Outreach:", "Research:", etc).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>
> Thanks for clarifying Richard. I agree with merging those meta
> projects together.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:05:31 +0200
> From: Wikipedia Signpost <wikipediasignpost(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] The Signpost ? Volume 7, Issue 27 ? 4 July
> 2011
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikimediaannounce-l <WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAEqKY4+NSfp6MAUUWZZ_zeJQbsMPN97RpDVgApPYvBzkkN2ySw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04/News_a…
>
> In the news: WikiLove roll-out; ?25,000 in damages for being removed
> from Wikipedia; brief news
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04/In_the…
>
> WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04/WikiPr…
>
> Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04/Featur…
>
> Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue;
> Motion re: admin
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04/Arbitr…
>
> Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user
> profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04/Techno…
>
>
> Single page view
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>
>
> PDF version
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-04
>
>
>
> http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>
> --
> Wikipedia Signpost Staff
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 88, Issue 11
> ********************************************
>
