Wikimedia-l February 2012

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

141 participants
94 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 61
by Joan Goma 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:12:46 +0100 > From: Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> > > > And -- in the event the OP is still here, Joan Gom?, how are you > properly addressed in person? I have heard people say things like > "When does Gom? arrive in Paris" and I have also been using that. But > you should presumably be addressed as Joan -- and presumably with the > J sound pronounced as a Y? > > Thanks, > Sue > Well I am a bit ashamed by all this attentions to this off topic issue. I am used to many changes in my name but if you are curious this is the idea: It is indifferent to use the name or surname. In Catalan it is much more common to use the surname even among friends because the names are repeated a lot but either is correct and usual. "J" in Catalan is pronounced exactly the same as in English. It is perfectly correct to pronounce Joan as in English. It sounds like if you came from Valencia. In Barcelona it is pronounced Jooan the “o” sounds like “oo” in book.

1 0

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Articles In Uzbek Blocked
by Fred Bauder 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

http://www.rferl.org/content/uzbek_wikipedia_blocked/24486460.html

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 58
by Craig Franklin 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Béria, I was not calling you out as the only person doing this, you just happened to be the most recent. Certainly we have a tradition in my country of shortening names as well (or just adding the suffix -o or -za to them, so that "John" becomes "Johnno" or "Barry" becomes "Bazza"), but I would never presume to call you "B" or "Bério" or something like that without first being invited to do so. In this case, Jan-Bart has made it abundantly clear that he prefers to be called "Jan-Bart" and not some other name, so we should leave it at that. Cheers, Craig > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:09:27 -0200 > From: B?ria Lima <berialima(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 > Message-ID: > <CAA2XHjBs-3Xkn1yhztoBUwFzPs_KpuhWyQeoH0pYjcy3=jEHpg(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Gom? called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. > > Everyone in Brazil calls me "B" (yah, just the first letter) and here is > VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast > than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this > ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat > people we really dislike by their last name). > _____ > *B?ria Lima* > > *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter > livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a > construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* > > > On 15 February 2012 23:09, Craig Franklin <craig(a)halo-17.net> wrote: > > > I had wanted to keep out of this, but this is the third or fourth time > > that Jan-Bart has been referred to as "Jan". It was an understandable > > enough mistake to make the first time, but it's been pointed out > > enough now that that is no longer an excuse. We do not all have to be > > best of mates, but it is not unreasonable that we all should show some > > basic courtesy towards each other, and taking the time to get each > > other's names right would be a good start. > > > > If you feel that Jan-Bart is being condescending towards you, the best > > solution to that problem is not more condescension thrown back in the > > opposite direction. > > > > Cheers, > > Craig >

1 0

[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
by Joan Goma 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

> From: Florence Devouard <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> > To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 > Message-ID: <jhar77$4kl$1(a)dough.gmane.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote: > > Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use > > Wikimedia marks ? > > Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ? > > > > I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten > > to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and > > mission aligned with Wikimedia's". > > Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this > decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore > except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within > the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept > redondant with partner organizations. > > I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help unfolding that kind of mess. > But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the > difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to > better see what the difference is ? > I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences come from 3 parameters: a)Registered organizations / Informal groups b)Geography focused / Non geography focused c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that benefit us. Then the classification comes like this: 1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia 2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia 3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia 4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better) > > For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a > partner or an affiliate ? > > Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? > Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible. First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably they can fit in the Partner Organization model. You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them to participate in Wikilovemsonuments.[1] I think Partner Organization can be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and same freedom than any body else. They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same freedom you have to promote French ones. [1] Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their participation because they were not a chapter and others including them. Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWiki_Loves_Monumen…

7 18

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Translations of January 2012 Wikimedia Highlights available in العربية (Arabic), Dansk (Danish), Français (French), Magyar (Hungarian), Italiano ‎(Italian)‎, Nederlands (Dutch), Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
by Tilman Bayer 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

The following translation are now available for the January 2012 "Wikimedia Highlights", which combine some of the most relevant information from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2012 with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement. Help is welcome in spreading the translated versions among the project communities for these languages, where this has not already been done. Many thanks to all translators! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/vi Những điểm nổi bật từ Bản báo cáo Wikimedia Foundation và phản hồi kỹ thuật Wikimedia vào tháng 1 năm 2012, bao gồm các sự kiện quan trọng khác của phong trào Wikimedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/nl Hoogtepunten uit de Wikimedia Foundationrapportage en de Wikimedia technische rapportage voor januari 2012, aangevuld met een selectie van andere belangrijke gebeurtenissen binnen de Wikimediabeweging. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/it Punti salienti dal rapporto della Wikimedia Foundation e dal rapporto ingegneristico Wikimedia di gennaio 2012, con una selezione di altre importanti iniziative dagli eventi di Wikimedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/hu A Wikimédia Alapítvány beszámolójának és a Wikimédia mérnöki beszámolónak fontosabb pontjai illetve más fontos események a Wikimédia-mozgalomból 2012 januárjában. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/fr Éclairages sur le rapport de la Fondation Wikimédia et le rapport d’ingénierie Wikimédia pour janvier 2012, avec une sélection d’autres évènements importants du mouvement Wikimédia. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/da Hovedpunkter fra Wikimedia Foundations månedsrapport og Wikimedias tekniske rapport for januar 2012 med et udvalg af andre betydningsfulde hændelser i Wikimedia-bevægelsen https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012/ar أهم المقتطفات من تقرير مؤسسة ويكيميديا و تقرير ويكيميديا الهندسي لشهر يناير 2012، مع مجموعة من أهم الأحداث لحركة ويكيميديا (Translations into other languages, such as Finnish, might become available later this month, check https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_January_2012 ). Suggestions for the movement news section in the upcoming Highlights issue are welcome until March 1, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights . Also a quick note that on the suggestion of users Timeshifter and Buster Keaton, we have started a (still experimental) global subscription service for the "Wikimedia Highlights", similar to that of the Signpost. If you would like to receive a summary message delivered to your user talk page on any Wikimedia project right after each issue is published, add yourself to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikimedia_H… (at the moment this is for the English original, but eventually subscription should become available for the translated versions as well). -- Tilman Bayer Movement Communications Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimediaindia-l] Improving outreach efforts in India
by Amir E. Aharoni 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

See below for a great presentation of problems in conducting outreach events and wiki workshop by Nitika Tandon. It discusses events in India, but most of it is relevant for the whole world. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬ ‎---------- Forwarded message ----------‎ From: Nitika ‎<ntandon(a)wikimedia.org>‎ Date: 2012/2/13 Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] Improving outreach efforts in India To: Wikimedia India Community list ‫wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org‬ Dear All, The following is a post I've put up on the India Program page on meta regarding outreach (Please see:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:India_Program/Outreach_Programs). Please do comment on the page itself; I'm posting it on this mailing list only to make sure it doesn't slip your attention. We have conducted over 13 outreach sessions in the past one month and have many more events scheduled to participate in over the coming weeks. (Please see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Program/Outreach_Programs/Outreach_Ses…). It's amazing that we're doing so many outreach events all over the country to create awareness about Wikipedia, motivate attendees to learn about editing and training newbies to contribute to Wikipedia in their own special way. The single biggest challenge is that we don't know the actual outcome of these efforts in most cases, and the results are weak when we have the data. I think most of us agree that outreach can be made to work better. (For example, 2 outreach sessions conducted recently by the Assamese community had about 80 participants, and 8 active editors emerged - which is a hit rate of 10% - which is FANTASTIC!) For most other sessions, the results have been closer to 1-2% or even lower - which is depressing. What makes outreach work? How can outreach work better? Is there anything you need from me? Over the past 3 months, I have been working on building a handbook for Outreach (Please see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Program/Outreach_Programs/Handbook) where you can get presentation material and tips. Please do go through it and help me build it. My post consists of 5 (deliberately) provocative statements on the day of and the days after an outreach session. These are framed with the objective of generating debate and suggestions. THE DAY OF Hypthesis 1: Don't Shoot the Puppy: Outreach is not being done effectively and we aren't adequately introspecting on what we can do better; instead choosing to lose faith in attendees Should we discontinue general introduction sessions completely and just convert everything into Wiki workshops? Every second of volunteer time is precious and we need to make sure that every second is made to count. The good sessions appear to be those where people are actually shown how to edit - rather than just doing a song-and-dance about Wikipedia. The best sessions are those where people have actual hands-on editing opportunity. Shall we limit the intro session on Wikipedia to just 15 minutes and then spend 45 minute on basic editing, 30 minutes on hand-on editing and leave 30 minutes for Q&A? Not everyone is a natural presenter and might need help on basic outreach skills. Is there value and interest in a capacity building roadshow where we help existing editors who want to improve their outreach and presentation skills? Is it useful to pair up a good presenter with a not-so-confident presenter when we are doing outreach? THE DAY AFTER Hypothesis #2: Staying in Touch: We assume the job is complete after the outreach session when in fact the journey has only just begun Can we gather (basic) information about attendees (e.g., names, usernames & email IDs?) so that we can stay in touch with them after sessions? Can we get feedback on sessions (duration, level of detail, quality of presenters, etc.?) so that we can all improve? Do we need some sort of CRM solution for this or will something like Google Docs suffice? How do we get more folks to actually provide their contact details and feedback? Which of the following will get higher response rates: asking for these just before the end, immediately after the end or the day after a session? Hypothesis #3: Nudge-Nudge: Newbies struggle with the most basic things - including which article to select Should we send links to useful wiki pages and tutorial videos where they can read up more about how Wikipedia works and how to edit Wikipedia? Can we leave handouts on basic editing after all sessions? Can we send them links to the actual presentations made at the session. Can we suggest / elicit potential articles that individual newbies will work on after the workshop? Can we give them individual pointers on what they can do with each article by reviewing them there-and-then during the session? Can we schedule a follow-up session (even if virtually using google+ hangout) to clarify any doubts about Wikipedia editing or otherwise - maybe 2 weeks after a session? Hypothesis #4: Loneliness - Newbies feel alone and the only time they sense the community is when their edits get reverted Should we not encourage them to join project pages (such as the WP:INDIA) and/or the India mailing list and/or their city/language mailing list to get involved with the community? Can we involve them in COTM or conduct specific editathons for them? Can we celebrate their successes and get newbies to talk to other newbies about how they learnt stuff? Hyptothesis #5: Black Hole: No one has a clue about the actual results of outreach Can we regularly monitor number & % of active editors after 1 and 3 months of conducting all events? Can we figure out % of mainspace edits from these newbies after 1 and 3 months? Can this be analysed to provide recommendations on how we can do things better? Can we actively reach out to those who look like they are struggling? Do we need a CRM tool for something like this? Is it useful to track and attempt to co-relate age / profession / subject (if student) / sex of participants to figure out what is likely to give greatest results? I have been working to see how can we overcome these challenges and make our outreach efforts far more effective. I'd love to hear from on the above. Some of you have been actively involved in outreach sessions (attending or conducting or planning) an I'd like to know your thoughts and suggestions which might serve as solutions for this set of very real challenges. Thanks Nitika _______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

1 0

[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
by Joan Goma 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Just to provide some background to my previous mail and left clear that there is not offensive intention. In Spanish the cemetery is a well known metaphor for the difficulties of reforming universities and educational systems. For example in Uruguay: http://www.ort.edu.uy/home/rectorado/pdf/vocesrector101209.pdf Headline says: EDUCATIONAL REFORM: "... difficult as reforming cemeteries can not be counted with much help from those inside. " I chose this example because I hope somebody will like the picture.

1 0

[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
by Joan Goma 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi Jan, It is not a problem of lack of time or lack of communication channels. It is a problem of lack of participation of chapters and fear of change. These proposals have been in meta for months. [1] The answer to many of the questions raised here have been in meta for months. [2] The problem is that it is very difficult to reform a cemetery if you need the participation of inmates and even more if when you're about to decide then all of them suddenly resurrect to oppose. The movement roles group has worked and made his proposal. It has members that also are active in chapters who were well aware of chapter’s needs and sensitivity. I think that from the beginning the chapters have been afraid to change and believed that it was they who had the authority to decide or at least to block any decision. That’s why IMO they have not felt the need to participate and that’s why they now raise their voice with thousand arguments to block the decision. In theory and to some extent I could agree with chapters that creating any new model is their death. (particularly the dead of dorment or inactive chapters) But in practice things are exactly the reverse. Wikimedia Spain [3] is the best evidence that having other organizations in the same territory is highly healthy for chapters. Although while these organizations are not formally recognized and there are no mechanisms for communication and coordination between them and the chapters there will be misunderstandings and inconveniences. I think that many participants in this debate are not grasping what decision we are talking about. We are not proposing the creation of new organizations. We are not deciding whether there will be new organizations that compete with chapters or not. The creation of new models and new organizations is not in our hands. In many countries in the world there is freedom of association and those new models and organizations may perfectly appear. They don’t need our approval. What we are deciding here is whether we want to create channels of communication and cooperation with these new models and encourage them to appear or if we give them back and tries to discourage more people joining to promote free knowledge. I think Florence and Lodewijk have understood. But while the proposal of Florence seems to me that leads us to give them back by creating two sides with the WMF and the new institutions in one and chapters in the other the proposal of Lodewijk leads to create mechanisms to ensure that we have good understanding. I like more the proposal of Lodewijk. I also have given my view to the questions Achal so kindly had the patience to collect in meta. [4] [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_roles/summary/models&d… [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles/models#Partner_organizat… [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Espa%C3… [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:41:49 +0100 > From: Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede(a)wikimedia.org> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 > Message-ID: <268BD4B0-7E6F-43FE-BCC6-03B486877091(a)wikimedia.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi Ziko and Lodewijk, > > Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved > in these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came > out of the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve > these recommendations. > > It is clear to me that there is a close link between the > fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of > "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we need to increase the > different kinds of organisation methods that we support. > > But lets take the time to discuss the content of this proposal. If that > means we need to take an extra month, so be it (would be my personal > opinion) and make sure that we end up with something that is a marked > improvement on the current situation. And we might have to refine it in the > coming years (as we will have to do with most of the things we are trying > to settle at this point :) > > Thanks for your constructive feedback! > > Jan-Bart > >

2 1

[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
by Ting Chen 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: ---- The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process. We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March. Thanks, Ting. Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations == Expansion of movement affiliation models == In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement: *: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement. *: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia. == Recognizing new affiliation models == In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover: * recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation. This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting. ;References: * [[wmf:Audit charter]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]] -- Ting Chen Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. E-Mail: tchen(a)wikimedia.org

16 20

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 8, Issue 07 -- 13 February 2012
by Wikipedia Signpost 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Discussion report: Administrators, vanishing, and ponies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Discus… Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Specia… News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/News_a… In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/In_the… In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/In_foc… WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/WikiPr… Featured content: The best of the week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Featur… Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Arbitr… Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/Techno… Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l February 2012