Klaus Graf, 25/01/2012 13:11:
> I think there is a much more important issue we should discuss.
> The US-centric WS may neglect it because there is widespread opinion
> that human beeings can only live in the US but for all European
> Wikisource branches this is VERY VERY important. I cannot understand
> that the danger to loose important parts of our work doesn't matter.
> We can move the media from Commons to the local wikis but what if -
> worst case - the WMF decides not to tolerate media or TEXTS not PD in
> the US on WMF servers (without fair use rationale, see en WP)?
The WMF has already decided so in 2007, as mentioned just a few days ago
about it.source, which had to move texts to a WMIT-hosted server:
(and section above, linked there).
Klaus Graf, 25/01/2012 14:00:
> The law counsel recommandation of 2007 wasn't communicated to the
> other WS and WE SHOULD IGNORE IT. It's clear that WMF has NOW to say
> what is possible in the light of the Supreme Court Decision -
> regarding Commons and the other WMF projects.
> This is a clear issue of a WMF board resolution and not for an opinion
> peace on a talk page which is executed from an incompetent WS branch.
I mentioned a Wikisource-specific old decision, but that's always been
the established policy on all WMF wikis, which has just been confirmed
least the laws of the United States of America»
I'm not expressing an opinion about this, I've just remembered that
you're not trying to prevent a possible future decision but to overturn
an old established one, so it will be more difficult than you envision.
FYI - posted today at
Orange and the Wikimedia Foundation partner to offer Wikipedia in Africa
and the Middle East at no extra cost
In the first partnership of its kind, Orange and the Wikimedia
Foundation will provide more than 70 million Orange customers in Africa and
the Middle East (AMEA) with mobile access to Wikipedia - without incurring
data usage charges
San Francisco, CA, and Paris, France -- January 24, 2012 -- Orange and the
Wikimedia Foundation today announced a major partnership designed to make
knowledge more easily available to Orange mobile customers throughout
Africa and the Middle East. In the first partnership of its kind for
Wikipedia, Orange and the Wikimedia Foundation will provide customers in
both remote and urban areas of AMEA with access to Wikipedia.
In 2009, Orange and the Wikimedia Foundation formed the world’s first
mobile and Internet partnership to expand the reach of Wikimedia’s projects
through channels on Orange mobile and web portals in Europe. This new
partnership will be gradually launched throughout 2012 across 20 African
and Middle Eastern countries where Orange operates, with the first markets
launching early in the year. The initiative is part of the Wikimedia
Foundation's mobile strategy that aims to reach the billions of people
around the world who access the Internet solely through mobile devices.
Any customer with an Orange SIM and mobile internet enabled phone will be
able to access the Wikipedia site either through their browser or an Orange
widget. They can access the Wikipedia encyclopedia services for as many
times as they like at no extra charge as long as they stay within
"Wikipedia is an important service, a public good -- and so we want people
to be able to access it for free, regardless of what device they're using,"
said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. "This
partnership with Orange will enable millions of people to read Wikipedia,
who previously couldn't. We're thrilled to be Orange's partner in this
Marc Rennard, Group Executive Vice President, Africa, Middle-East and Asia
at Orange, commented, “In countries where access to information is not
always readily available, we are making it simple and easy for our
customers to use the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopaedia. It is
the first partnership of this kind in the world where we are enabling
customers to access Wikipedia without incurring any data charges; and shows
Orange’s ability, once again, to innovate in Africa and the Middle East,
and bring more value to our customers.”
Stephanie Hospital, Executive Vice President, Orange Audience & Advertising
division, commented, "Since we first partnered with the Wikimedia
Foundation two years ago, we have remained committed to helping them spread
knowledge to as many people in the world as possible. We're proud to once
again be the Wikimedia Foundation's first partner in Africa and the Middle
France Telecom-Orange is one of the world’s leading telecommunications
operators with 170,000 employees worldwide, including 102,000 employees in
France, and sales of 33.8 billion euros in the first nine months of 2011.
Present in 35 countries, the Group had a customer base of 221 million
customers at 30 September 2011, including 145 million customers under the
Orange brand, the Group's single brand for internet, television and mobile
services in the majority of countries where the company operates. At 30
September 2011, the Group had 162 million mobile customers and 14 million
broadband internet (ADSL, fibre) customers worldwide. Orange is one of the
main European operators for mobile and broadband Internet services and,
under the brand Orange Business Services, is one of the world leaders in
providing telecommunication services to multinational companies.
Conquests 2015 is Orange’s new corporate initiative to simultaneously
addressing its employees, customers and shareholders, as well as the
society in which the company operates, through a concrete set of action
plans. These commitments are expressed through a new vision of human
resources for employees; through the deployment of a network infrastructure
upon which the Group will build its future growth; through the Group's
ambition to offer a superior customer experience thanks in particular to
improved quality of service; and through the acceleration of international
France Telecom (NYSE:FTE) is listed on Euronext Paris (compartment A) and
on the New York Stock Exchange. For more information (on the Internet and
on your mobile): http://www.orange.com, http://www.orange-business.com,
http://www.orange-innovation.tv Orange and any other Orange product or
service names included in this material are trade marks of Orange Brand
Services Limited, Orange France or France Telecom.
About the Wikimedia Foundation
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 457 million unique visitors per month, making them the
fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, December 2011).
Available in 282 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 20 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
US/UK – Vanessa Clarke / Jeff Sharpe
+44 7891 056 593 / +44 7887 620 901
vanessa.clarke(a)orange.com / jeff.sharpe(a)orange.com
France – Héloïse Rothenbühler
+33 1 44 44 93 93
Head of Communications
+1 415-839-6885, ext 6609
Head of Communications
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
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
"Under SOPN, all copyrighted material which is not licensed under
creative commons or public domain or an equally free and liberal
license (collectively called "public") should be banned from the
Internet. By removing all such material which is not publicly
licensed, SOPN will kill piracy with one blow as there is nothing to
I want to remind everyone to officially start a bid for the locale of
Wikimania 2013. All bids made so far are *unofficial* and cannot be
considered, as long as they are not in the list of official bids on
The possibility to make an official bid closes at ***January 28, 23:59
UTC***, this is in less than five days! So hurry up if you want
Wikimania to happen at your place. :)
Note that you then have two more months to make your actual bid (and
one more month to refine it). You don't need to have everything
completely ready by now, so don't worry. :) For now, just create the
bid page and list it under "Official bids". Please don't forget to
list your organizing team members on the bid page. (All of them should
enable their email function on the Meta wiki, so that we can reach all
of you easily.)
On behalf of the jury
On 23 January 2012 14:53, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On the surface this is a very frivolous post. Funnily enough I have
> a serious point I have been nursing along for a while. Any
> list moderators listening? There are times when the mailing
> list itself can be a source of infighting and internal politics. I submit
> this is not one of them, and as such, I think modified rules to the
> soft moderation rules should be adopted. Blatant trolling should
> get a "one strike and you are on hard moderation" response,
> and monthly moderation limits should be lifted entirely. We really
> are on war footing. Not bean-bags at 50 yards footing. We need
> to sort things out, and more talk is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I'm splitting this out into a new thread, since it's off-topic for the
The problem with zero tollerance for blatant trolling (which is a
policy everyone would agree to) is that there is often a lot of
disagreement over what actually constitutes blatant trolling. If you
aren't careful, you can end up with more heated debates about
moderation than you ever had about the actual controversies that were
I agree that more talk is a good thing. The moderation limits serve
two purposes - to keep the total volume down and also to avoid a small
number of people dominating discussion. I don't think the former is
necessarily desirable, but a case can be made for the latter. I
suggest the moderation limits be set at 5% of the emails so far in
that month (with some common sense applied in the first week or so -
obviously the first person to send an email in a month would be at
100% until the next email!). In most months, that would be around 30
emails, but it means that when there is simply a lot of discussion
going on people can contribute to it without being unnecessarily
silenced half-way through the month.
I was looking at the statistics last night (I'm not too far off 30
posts so far this month, so wanted to keep an eye on it) and apart
from two people (who know who they are!) it's currently rare for
anyone to go over 30 posts except in particularly busy months. I don't
think anyone has actually been put on moderation in those busy months,
so the policy might as well reflect actual practice.
> What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of
> money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes
> the foundation think our can?
geni, as you may know, I spent more than a decade in Washington
working on public-policy issues for non-profits (including EFF, the
Center for Democracy and Technology, and Public Knowledge). One of the
principal lessons of that experience was that public-interest
participation in policymaking debates added a lot of value precisely
because opponents couldn't write off a charity as simply being
interested in expanding its market or profits.
And the synergies between corporate lobbying and public-interest
policy initiatives -- on the occasions when their interests do line up
-- have a greater political impact than either faction can have
working alone. If you've spent time on Capitol Hill, or meeting with
bureaucrats at federal agencies, you already know that a standard
tactic of your opponents is to marginalize you. So if you're Google,
the rap on you is that you're a quasi-monopoly spending Washington
dollars to maintain your position as a market leader. And if you're
ACLU or EFF, you're dismissed as arguing fringe issues that don't
represent the mainstream of American political thought.
But when Google (or Microsoft or Intel) come to policymakers and say
the same things that the nonprofit groups (EFF or ACLU or -- someday,
perhaps -- WMF) are telling them, it gets much, much harder for the
opposition to dismiss the message.
(The content companies already know this -- that's why they took such
pains to sign up a bunch of nonprofits as supporters of SOPA and PIPA,
even though many of the latter bailed when they realized MPAA was
perhaps not the best guide on these issues.)
None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying
dollars that Google spends -- even if that were possible (and of
course it isn't remotely possible). The money WMF spends on something
like this is microscopic compared to that of for-profit corporation,
and pretty small even compared to other nonprofits. Nevertheless, a
nonprofit showing up and making its voice heard -- especially when its
arguments dovetail with those of much larger players like Google --
counts for a lot. It can't be easily dismissed. It makes most
policymakers think twice.
At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a 
here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified
as "original research." But don't take my word for it -- talk to other
NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find
plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here.
Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
> professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
> client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in
> private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the
> process, usually a pretty hefty sum.
Yes, you're wrong.
> Are those discussions and arrangements
> made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our
> voice heard?
No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington
government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise
you on how to be effective, but the word "private" is inappropriate
here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's
engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this --
in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly
increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both
for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I
represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public
Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing
I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of
whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the
public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as
> You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated
> with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct
> and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be.
You'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public.
They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have
noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means
to "lobby" in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine.
> Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far
> off either.
Hugely far off, actually.
To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of
police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong
to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it
would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and
routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to
do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film
or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom.
If you really think that (for example) the American Library
Association's Office for Information Technology Policy
(http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with
senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment
industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the
ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any
(I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were
capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.)