Wikimedia-l November 2014

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

140 participants
96 discussions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?
by Fæ 30 Nov '14

30 Nov '14

On 30 November 2014 at 07:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... > Do not be daft. The Wikimedia Foundation centralised its fundraising. It > said that it would do a better job. Seen from a central periphery model, it > probably does, However seen from the Netherlands it is rather silly., ... I believe that the current process of centralizing funds in the USA that are actually taken in Europe and then paid out outside of the USA is *highly* inefficient. By the time the WMF and local organization (i.e. chapter, thorg, user group or project) costs of fundraising, grant applications, administration and reporting, payment costs and significant tax burden are considered, this (avoidable system) throws away at least 40c out of each donated $1 before we can even start calculating the extra administration costs/wastage from that point on, which as a past Chapter chair, I know can easily be a further 50% compounded on the cost. Despite this being raised several times over the last few years, no chapter or the WMF has unambiguously or straight-forwardly calculated the true end-to-end processing costs. As a consequence, this can only be a guesstimate based on experience. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

1 0

Why is bank transfer no longer possible?
by Lodewijk 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

A while back now, the chapters were no longer allowed to fundraise, because the Wikimedia Foundation argued they would be better able to do this. At the time, this sounded somewhat reasonable. However, since then, there have been some disturbing developments - at least for Dutch donors. No longer it is possible to pay electronically (iDEAL, one of the most common methods is no longer supported - 'electronic banking' simply refers you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer (using an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page <https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPag…> only allows credit card and paypal, and the 'other ways to give' simply sends you to the helpdesk if you want to make a bank transfer payment. What is the reasoning behind this? Have bank transfers become a legal swamp? Are there statistics suggesting that this method was no longer required by donors? Did the European bank account somehow get temporarily suspended? If it has become so hard to donate, maybe it makes more sense to send the donors to the local chapter pages where they can actually donate in the local suitable methods (in this case, Wikimedia Netherlands offers both iDEAL and IBAN <http://www.wikimedia.nl/pagina/doneren-aan-wikimedia-nederland>). One of the Dutch OTRS team members asked for elaboration, but didn't quite get a satisfying answer. I hope this is a temporary situation, and that this threshold will be removed again. It would be sad if we go through all kind of trouble to enable long tail methods like bitcoin, but skip bank transfer... Best, Lodewijk

10 13

Wikimania 2014 Evaluation Survey Results Posted!
by Maria Cruz 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

*tl;dr: *You can find the results of the Wikimania 2014 Evaluation Survey on Wikimedia Commons *[1]* Greetings, Today we posted a slide deck summarizing data from the Wikimania evaluation survey from this year’s event in London. The survey was a collaborative effort of the Wikimania Conference and Hackathon organizers and the WMF Learning and Evaluation team. Conferences and hackathons had been identified as key programs to develop evaluation insight. Given the opportunity to collaborate on an evaluation survey, WMF team members partnered with conference and hackathon organizers to provide the technical support to complete the survey project. This first survey offers a look into the processes and outcomes of the conference. It is intended as a means for participants to share what they got out of the conference and a platform to collect information on how we can improve future conferences and their evaluation. We have released a basic data summary and meta page with brief highlights of the survey and link to a pdf slide deck published to Commons *[1]*. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/Wikimania_Lo… == Methodology == * Online survey via Qualtrics *[2]* * Data collection: ** August 10th – September 15th, 2014 ** Conference participants: 1520 ** Survey Respondents: n=792 (52% of conference participants) === The Conference Overall === * Participants were highly satisfied with the conference overall. * 91% of respondents rated the conference as "Good" (48%) or "Excellent" (43%) * 87% indicated their expectations had been "met" (48%) or "exceeded" (39%) * The most named benefits of attending Wikimania were meeting people and finding out about projects. Favorite talks: 1. Creative Ways to Alienate Women Online: A How To Guide for Wikipedians (by Steven Walling and Maryana Pinchuk) 2. Which Law Applies to Wikipedia (by Tobias Lutzi) 3. Raph Koster: A Theory of Fun 4. Jack Andraka 5. Education (by members of the Wiki Ed Foundation and Education Collaborative) Please visit the page *[3]* for basic details or follow the links to the slide deck *[1]*. The complete survey data are available upon request and will be used by both the conference and the hackathon planning groups for their use in planning for future events and their evaluation. In addition, the Learning and Evaluation team will also work to review and incorporate these results, along with evaluation data from other conferences, in the second round of Program Evaluation reports currently in progress. The conference financial report is also underway, however, it will also be available sometime in the new year. Keep an eye out for these additional points of reporting to become available in early 2015! On behalf of all who have collaborated in this evaluation survey, those who helped with its development, the 792 participants who completed it, and those involved in the its analysis, and now, interpretation: thank you for your time, attention, and support! We are happy to be part in this collective learning about Wikimedia conferences and hackathons. Your questions are welcome, and encouraged, on the talk page. *María Cruz * \\ Community Coordinator, PE&D Team \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. mcruz(a)wikimedia.org | : @marianarra_ <https://twitter.com/marianarra_> *[1] Summary Slide Deck* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2014_Participant_Survey_-… *[2] Survey Items* https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1b3Qp-l8HU4WYFX2lyAC… *[3] Overview Page* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/Wikimania_Lo…

3 2

[Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 46 -- 26 November 2014
by Wikipedia Signpost 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Featured content: Orbital Science: Now you're thinking with explosions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-26/Featur… In the media: A Russian alternative Wikipedia; Who's your grandfather?; ArtAndFeminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-26/In_the… Recent research: Gender gap and skills gap; academic citations on the rise; European food cultures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-26/Recent… Traffic report: Big in Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-26/Traffi… WikiProject report: Back with the military historians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-26/WikiPr… Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-26 https://www.facebook.com/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 Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

1 0

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Experimenting on Wikimedians
by Federico Leva (Nemo) 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

An interesting piece of corporate communication on the topic was http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/ I've expanded the Meta-Wiki page a bit, including the following additions: * They number in the dozens and are usually documented in the Meta-Wiki [[Research]] namespace. * Their outcome is often not used for any concrete deliverable, such as a merged change to MediaWiki core PHP code or a peer reviewed paper. * Sometimes changes which are known to be potentially harmful, and would never (or hardly) pass standard code review, are deployed as "experiments" to bypass tougher public scrutiny. (This is also valid of fundraising banners, whose poor translations since 2011 are often actively damaging to the public opinion and understanding of Wikimedia projects.) Nemo P.s.: MZMcBride, 31/10/2014 04:13: > Of course the stark reality is that A/B testing on users (typically > readers, not editors) during the annual Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser > has been a major component of the Wikimedia Foundation's growth. In part that's a myth. The income has been increased simply by making the banners larger, brighter, naughtier and alarming (we're in danger, bla bla). Sometimes they take more space than is left to the article; sometimes they can't be dismissed.

3 4

FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
by Dariusz Jemielniak 27 Nov '14

27 Nov '14

Greetings, friends, As you all know, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We recently met in San Francisco to deliberate on the 11 annual plan grant proposals submitted for this round of review. [2] We thank these organizations for their hard work on their annual plans and proposals. The FDC has now posted our Round 1 2014-2015 recommendations on the annual plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees: http://goo.gl/Ea7d4I . [3] With the support of the FDC’s two Board Representatives (Bishakha Datta and Frieda Brioschi), the WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them by 1 January 2015. This round, proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic organization, totaling requests of roughly $4.7 million USD. Before our face-to-face deliberations, which were held from 15-18 November, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals. Our conversations were intense and the decisions were not easy; each proposal was carefully considered both in its own context and environment, and strengths and concerned were discussed. We are recommending grants totaling roughly $3.8 million USD. Now that the recommendations have been published, there is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals to the Board. Here are the steps for both: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 1 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2014 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Frieda Brioschi and Bishakha Datta). The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision on this and all recommendations by 1 Jan 2015. Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed. Please have a look at the calendar [6] to see other upcoming milestones in the annual plan grants / FDC process. Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organizations who submitted annual plan grant proposals to the FDC. On behalf of the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit", FDC Chair) [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2… [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_reco… [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar

14 15

Creation of the Volunteer Supporters Network
by Dirk Franke 27 Nov '14

27 Nov '14

Hi everyone, many Wikimedia organizations have their own programs or initiatives dedicated to volunteer/community support as well as their respective people in charge of this key activity. We have people who are primarily active themselves but who primarily support and help others, the volunteers in the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement, being active. Whereas other fields of action such as Education and GLAM have a longer tradition of systematic international exchange, the project of a global volunteer supporters network got going at the Volunteer Support pre-conference at Wikimania 2014 in London. This pre-conference brought a first focused discussion between volunteer supporters worldwide and the people there decided to maintain a steady discussion to learn and share, inspire and help each other. We’re glad to announce the news: We have finally set up a page on Meta about “Volunteer Support” in order to create the basis for the future collaboration in our field of activity. Please have a look at it: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Supporters_Network Furthermore we’re announcing the launch of the volunteer-supporters mailing-list. For the moment it’s a private safe space mailing-list, corresponding to what we collectively decided in August during the discussion at the end of the pre-conference. This is for people whose main aim is not doing stuff but supporting and helping others, volunteers, to do it. Make sure to subscribe here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/volunteer-supporters This network and mailing list is meant to: - Learn from each other, share experiences, problems and lessons learned - Learn how to avoid redundancies and be efficient - Share best practices - Establish a forum where volunteer supporters can speak open in an international environment - Create a safe space for people involved - Learn from each other on how to achieve the most impact - Inspire each other with new ideas - Bring perspectives from a broad range of volunteer supporters from all over the world working with communities in very different ways We’re very much looking forward to exchange ideas, experiences, failures and best-practices and can’t wait to establish our network within the Wikimedia Movement. Raimund Liebert (WMAT) Muriel Staub (WMCH) Dirk Franke (WMDE) -- Dirk Franke Team Communitys Volunteer Support Dept. Fon +49 30 219158260 E-Mail: dirk.franke(a)wikimedia.de -- Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei! Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

2 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
by Balázs Viczián 27 Nov '14

27 Nov '14

Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile. How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Mem… Vince 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>: > we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years > of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is > true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, > or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC. > > If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) > does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements. > > Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need > people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people > with experience from chapter boards, for instance. > > best, > > dariusz "pundit" > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all. >> >> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about >> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had >> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them. >> >> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between >> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :) >> >> Vince >> >> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>: >> >>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that >>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for >>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) >>> >>> best, >>> >>> dj >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián >>> <balazs.viczian(a)gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its >>>> preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. >>>> >>>> Vince >>>> >>>> 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>: >>>> >>>>> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the >>>>> level >>>>> of >>>>> really small chapters in our movement. >>>>> >>>>> I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you >>>>> assuming >>>>> that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, >>>>> community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the >>>>> Foundation). >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your >>>>> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it >>>>> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't >>>>> just >>>>> as well as (b) failed attempts. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> dj "pundit" >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? >>>>> > >>>>> > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget >>>>> means >>>>> > to justify that to the stakeholders. >>>>> > >>>>> > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than >>>>> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds. >>>>> > >>>>> > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a >>>>> > lot). >>>>> > >>>>> > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those >>>>> > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, >>>>> service or >>>>> > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, >>>>> > resources, targets or deliverables". >>>>> > >>>>> > WMF is one stakeholders. >>>>> > >>>>> > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the >>>>> > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are >>>>> > stakeholders and so on. >>>>> > >>>>> > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter >>>>> because WMF >>>>> > is *one of the stakeholders*. >>>>> > >>>>> > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a >>>>> decision >>>>> > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy >>>>> in >>>>> > order to attract stakeholders. >>>>> > >>>>> > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the >>>>> > risk, >>>>> the >>>>> > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder >>>>> with >>>>> > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of >>>>> > the >>>>> > chapter. >>>>> > >>>>> > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of >>>>> biggest >>>>> > budget. >>>>> > >>>>> > regards >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < >>>>> darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > Hi Balazs, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion >>>>> > > of >>>>> the >>>>> > FDC >>>>> > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but >>>>> I was >>>>> > an >>>>> > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and >>>>> ran a >>>>> > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination >>>>> > > board >>>>> for >>>>> > > >>>>> > > best, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > dariusz "pundit" >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < >>>>> > > balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is >>>>> more >>>>> > > > or less on its maximum I think. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the >>>>> closest >>>>> > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - >>>>> it is >>>>> > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a >>>>> > > > full "business plan" - review) >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, >>>>> > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global >>>>> goals, >>>>> > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you >>>>> > > > say >>>>> it >>>>> > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and >>>>> > > > inexperienced >>>>> > > > group of people are handling >>>>> > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it >>>>> works >>>>> > > > pretty well. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from >>>>> > > > such >>>>> a >>>>> > > setup. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes >>>>> that >>>>> > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated >>>>> > > > ombudsperson for the case(s). >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are >>>>> visibly >>>>> > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a >>>>> > > > real >>>>> > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the >>>>> > > > "incoherentness" of reviews. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical >>>>> changes to >>>>> > > > the system imo. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Balazs >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>: >>>>> > > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare >>>>> three >>>>> > > > years, >>>>> > > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider >>>>> that >>>>> > > > Amical >>>>> > > > > is the best example to follow. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than >>>>> other >>>>> > > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is >>>>> > > > surrealistic. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: >>>>> > > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a >>>>> strong >>>>> > > glue >>>>> > > > > within the community >>>>> > > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = >>>>> > organization >>>>> > > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external >>>>> > > > > or >>>>> > > internal >>>>> > > > > questions (may be the opposite) >>>>> > > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest >>>>> to look >>>>> > > in >>>>> > > > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter >>>>> and to >>>>> > > check >>>>> > > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German >>>>> > community >>>>> > > to >>>>> > > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been >>>>> > > > > a >>>>> good >>>>> > > > > solution to improve the community participation to the >>>>> > > > > projects. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot >>>>> in the >>>>> > > > > biggest projects. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the >>>>> > diversity >>>>> > > > and >>>>> > > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the >>>>> historical >>>>> > > > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but >>>>> there >>>>> > are >>>>> > > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential" >>>>> editors >>>>> > > and >>>>> > > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the >>>>> > > > > decreasing >>>>> is >>>>> > not >>>>> > > > > beneficial. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > regards >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> >>>>> > > > > ha >>>>> > > scritto: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >> Hi Patrik, >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the >>>>> majority >>>>> > of >>>>> > > > the >>>>> > > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests >>>>> to the >>>>> > > FDC >>>>> > > > >> for >>>>> > > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around >>>>> strategic >>>>> > > > >> planning, >>>>> > > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount >>>>> of >>>>> > room >>>>> > > > for >>>>> > > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement >>>>> > > > >> (including >>>>> the >>>>> > > WMF.) >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the >>>>> largest >>>>> > > > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to >>>>> > > > >> deliver >>>>> > impact >>>>> > > to >>>>> > > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In >>>>> many >>>>> > > > instances >>>>> > > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to >>>>> develop >>>>> > > and >>>>> > > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making >>>>> recommendations >>>>> > > > about >>>>> > > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific >>>>> > > > >> project >>>>> or >>>>> > > > program, >>>>> > > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an >>>>> > > > organizations >>>>> > > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more >>>>> > complicated >>>>> > > > >> projects.) >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> Warm regards, >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> Sydney Poore >>>>> > > > >> User:FloNight >>>>> > > > >> Member FDC >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> > > > > Unsubscribe: >>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> > > > Unsubscribe: >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > >>>>> > > __________________________ >>>>> > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>>>> > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>>>> > > i centrum badawczego CROW >>>>> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>>>> > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>>>> > > >>>>> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk >>>>> > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? >>>>> An >>>>> > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego >>>>> > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Recenzje >>>>> > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >>>>> > > Pacific Standard: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ >>>>> > > Motherboard: >>>>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia >>>>> > > The Wikipedian: >>>>> > > >>>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge >>>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> > > Unsubscribe: >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Ilario Valdelli >>>>> > Wikimedia CH >>>>> > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens >>>>> > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre >>>>> > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera >>>>> > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich >>>>> > Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> >>>>> > Skype: valdelli >>>>> > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> >>>>> > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> >>>>> > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < >>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 >>>>> > > >>>>> > Tel: +41764821371 >>>>> > http://www.wikimedia.ch >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> > Unsubscribe: >>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>>>> , >>>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> __________________________ >>>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>>>> >>>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk >>>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >>>>> >>>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An >>>>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego >>>>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >>>>> >>>>> Recenzje >>>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >>>>> Pacific Standard: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ >>>>> Motherboard: >>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia >>>>> The Wikipedian: >>>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…> >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> __________________________ >>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>> >>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk >>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >>> >>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An >>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego >>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >>> >>> Recenzje >>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >>> Pacific Standard: >>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ >>> Motherboard: >>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia >>> The Wikipedian: >>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge >>> >> >> > > > -- > > __________________________ > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > Recenzje > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > Pacific Standard: > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ > Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia > The Wikipedian: > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge >

12 21

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
by Rjd0060 26 Nov '14

26 Nov '14

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:33 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be > incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not > cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool. > > MZMcBride > I couldn't see the banner in your screenshot link - it appears that Wikipedia has sent your computer has a virus or something ... a big pop-up asking for money!!! (Some people actually write to us @OTRS saying similar things - an indicator that it may not be the best way.) -- Ryan User:Rjd0060

1 0

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
by Risker 26 Nov '14

26 Nov '14

These banners are problematic in that they are likely to trigger automatic filtering of Wikimedia sites by certain types/brands of net nanny/anti-spam/security software - including software used by many employers, schools and libraries. And once the sites are filtered/blocked, it will be difficult if not impossible for many users (particularly if they don't have administrator permissions for the site) to lift the filter/block. Getting donations is not more important than keeping the sites accessible. Please reconsider. Risker/Anne On 26 November 2014 at 15:33, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png > > Gah. > > Yes, I understand that more obnoxious banners means more money faster and > presumably a shorter overall campaign. I also understand that we're only > punishing certain large wikis with these banners and that these banners > typically set a cookie so that they'll only appear once for most users. > > Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be > incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not > cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 November 2014