Hi everyone... again
Wikimedia France is just finishing the process of reorganizing.
I explained in a previous email the process we went through:
One risk we identified during that process is making the same mistakes
again. This is something we definitely want to avoid.
We also want to work on building on everything we did so far. Improve
how we are organized, have better evaluation of what we do and develop
the tools and processes we need.
With those goals, we believe that we will need a period of time with
as much stability as possible. To ensure that stability, we are going
to try to cap our budget growth to 6% for the next 24 months.
This is a goal we might find ourselves unable to meet it, but we want
to focus on the points described just above and if we put ourselves in
a situation where we keep on growing, we will make it harder for us to
focus on those goals.
This capping up to 6% could be overcome but only through if we
financially valorize volunteering and external partners’ funding for a
specific project. As the funds would be clearly allocated to this
project, we believe it would be easily manageable.
That percentage will allow us to increase our employees salary and
adjust the programs we run and expand their scope a little if we need
But the goal will be to force us to make choices between the programs
we could do and focus on the most efficient ones regarding our
We will try to regularly share our work with the movement so other
organizations can use it and give us feedback.
As usual, if anyone has any questions, feel free to ask them either on
or off list.
All the best,
Christophe HENNER | Vice-Chair
› Mail : christophe.henner(a)wikimedia.fr
› Mobile : +33(0)6 29 35 65 94
› Tel : +33(0)5 62 89 12 01
› Twitter : @Wikimedia_Fr
Wikimédia France | Association pour le libre partage de la
connaissance | Visitez notre blog http://blog.wikimedia.fr
It is with great pleasure that I can announce today that the Affiliations
Committee has appointed Carlos Colina as the chair (who previously served
as the vice-chair), and Cynthia Ashley-Nelson as the vice-chair of the
committee for a one year term ending in April 2015.
I am happy to leave the committee in the very capable hands of Carlos and
Cynthia, and will remain an ordinary member of AffCom going forward.
Member, Affiliations Committee
On 4/10/14, Chris McKenna <cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
> I'm no expert, but I would expect that finding which articles are and are
> not present in a given set of Wikipedias would be an easy task now that
> Wikidata handles all the interwiki links.
You are right. There is already even a request for a special page to
do just that <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46217>.
Here is the result of the SQL query Maarten suggested
<https://tools.wmflabs.org/paste/view/c6f4b3f0> (note that top results
are main pages and templates!)
It is also possible to view the pages with the most interwiki links on
a specific wiki, e.g.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MostInterwikis>. This is
nothing new, and shows more relevant "article" results than the query
Something positive... I just wanted to express my sincere thanks to the
people who made Echo, VisualEditor and Wikidata.
Many of them happen to be my colleagues, but I thank them here as a
Wikimedian who frequently does editing workshops.
I did a workshop today, and I was really happy to have these three pieces
Echo, because a participant specifically asked whether he would get a
notification if someone reverted his edit. I was happy to say that a few
months ago a feature was deployed that does just that. A year ago I
wouldn't be able to say that.
VisualEditor, because it saved so much time, both for the newbies and for
the workshop organizers. In the past I would spend many minutes explaining
about [], ====, '''''', <ref name="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ"> and other monstrosities. Today
I just told them to use VisualEditor. In particular, I want to thank the VE
developers for the recently released feature for editing the image
properties. A year ago I wouldn't be able to say that.
Wikidata, because many people there wrote translations of articles, and
adding interlanguage links was easy and natural. Click "Add links", pick a
language, write the title, that's it. Two years ago I would have to explain
about square brackets and colons. Some of them just did it by themselves
without even asking me.
So thank you so much.
PS: They also liked UniversalLanguageSelector for easy switching of the
interface language and for being able to effortlessly type in Amharic. I'm
really biased about this, but I do thank everybody in my team for this.
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Dear members of the Wikimedia movement:
Wikimedia México supports Patricio Lorente's candidacy to a second term as
a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. We believe
that Patricio's role as a trustee has been active and truly representative
of our chapter's vision on Wikimedia's governance.
He has also been a relevant actor within the movement towards the
generation of a perspective from Spanish-speaking chapters. Wikimedia
México has had in Patricio a confident conversation partner about our
worries on the Wikimedia movement.
In our view, a movement with global reach should be represented by people
with a free, open, fair and equitable view. Those qualities are present in
We are pleased to have the kind of support he provides us: he is always
ready to collaborate, to advise us on how he believes we can enhance our
role within Wikimedia and, since many years ago, to encourage us to be bold
in our performance as a chapter. It is no accident that over the last years
the Spanish-speaking environment has acquired more relevance within the
Wikimedia movement, what is also worth mentioning.
However, Patricio mustn't be seen as an exclusively Latin option, because
his performance accounts to the basic philosophy of all members of the
Wikimedia movement, and is based on principles that we all recognize as
ours: collaboration, solidarity and good faith. Patricio's presence in the
Board of Trustees reminds the movement, in a constant way, the principles
over it is founded.
Patricio has always been a friend ready to help, kind and dedicated to the
Wikimedia mission in a transparent and legitimate way. That is something
that should permeate all and every one of us who integrates this movement.
The Board of Wikimedia Mexico: Iván Martínez, Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs,
Carmen Alcázar, Salvador Alcántar, Alan Lazalde, José Flores.
You can read the letter here:
*Atentamente:Iván MartínezPresidenteWikimedia México A.C.wikimedia.mx
<http://wikimedia.mx>Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta
pueda tener acceso libre a la suma total del conocimiento humano. Eso es lo
que estamos haciendo <http://es.wikipedia.org>. *
as you all know the next Wikimedia Hackathon takes place in Zürich,
Switzerland. Registration is already open for a while and we already
passed the deadlines for scholarships and visa assistance. Thanks to the
WMF and several chapters we could assign 29 scholarships to participants
and facilitate 10 visa applications.
This Sunday we need to close the accommodation booking. So if you want
to participate in the Wikimedia Hackathon and you want us to book a bed
for you, please register NOW.
Fill in this form to register:
We have 15 beds left until the Youth Hostel is fully booked, 144
participants have registered so far.
If you do not need an accommodation provided by us you have more time.
Still we would be in favor if you could register soon, so we can adjust
the number of t-shirts, badges etc. Last minute registrations on site
are possible but then don't expect us to have surplus swag left for you ;-)
More information on the event, the location and the program can be found
Please also those who have already registered review the suggested
sessions and workshops, add your support or your own submission, to help
the program team to prepare some good sessions for you!
See you soon in Zürich,
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
Hello dear all,
now the second mail
Funding of international operating organizations is a very complicated
issue. The Wikimedia movement is not the first and not the last one to
face this topic. There are as many models on how this can be handled as
there are international organizations.
Currently the Wikimedia movement adapted a strong centralized model with
the Foundation as the only organization that does the fund distribution.
In the official text it is said that the Foundation only does "payment
processing" and the FDC does the fund distribution, I think this is
misguiding. The part of money that the FDC distribute is at the end
defined by the annual financial plan of the Foundation, and not by FDC
itself, in this way FDC doesn't really have financial sovereignty and is
only distributing a very small part of the whole movement funding.
There is a "long" way for us to come to this model, and yes, every
critics is correct who says that I am personally responsible for this
model. The model was introduced and adapted during my chair's personship
on the Foundation board and I defended this model during this time. I
remember lively the Wikimania in Haifa and in Washington. But it doesn't
mean that I cannot rethink this decision. Indeed, today I think that it
is mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
As I said earlier there is a history how we got into this result. At the
beginning, when WMDE was the only partner organization that did fund
raising beside of WMF there was an agreement between WMDE and WMF that
the amount of money raised inside of Germany (independent on who raised
it) will be split 50:50 between the two organizations. In year 2009 this
model was used to all organizations who wanted to do fund raising.
I won't speak for anyone else, I just want to speak for myself. I was
worried by the end of 2009. The reason why I was worried was the funding
of WMF, not that of the chapters, especially in the light of at that
time very vividly discussed WMUSA. The model we used for 2009 cut off
the Foundation from half of the funds from Europe outside of Germany,
especially from UK. In the light of higher funding result this was not
very much a problem for the WMF, because the biggest part of the funding
came from US. But in case that there would be a WMUSA and it would
participate in fund raising in the same way it would mean that the WMF
will lose almost half of its funding (given the case, that the fund
raising target will not be raised), and I want to remind the readers
that at that time the WMF budget in total was still quite low. That was
my worry. Let me emphasize that it was my private thought. As I said I
won't speak for anyone else. And I didn't talk with anyone in this
respect. I didn't hear anyone speak out a similar concern so I take I
was alone with this worry. There were no talk that I am aware of,
official or unofficial, that was related to this concern. Even though at
that time WMDE signaled to the Foundation that they were willing to
change the 50:50 splitting in benefit to the WMF, it seemed to me still
In the end, some other issues came up. I think all concerns that were
publicly made in this context are valid. And as I said in the other mail
I think that at the end it is good that we have set up those standards
and all organizations inside of the movement are profitable from these
But I think that the end result of the whole process is a very radical
centralized one. And as this it is not compatible to the value that we
declared for ourselves: That our movement should be decentralized.
Concrete I find a few points especially problematic with the approach we
The WMF is currently the only body that is empowered and is able to
distribute the funds
The grants are limited in one year's term and doesn't really help
long term development and strategy
Almost all grants are conditioned and doesn't give the partner
organization the necessary freedom and financial sovereignty that a
healthy independent organization needs
The lack of a from all partner organizations agreed strategy
I won't say that we won't get into these issues if we have a different
funding model, but I think that the current radically centralized
funding model makes these problems worse and almost impossible to resolve.
Even though the FDC and the GAC are run by volunteers, this does not
make them the ones that really distribute the funds of the movement. The
part of the funds that the FDC and the GAC can distribute, is only a
very small part of the entire fund raising result. And the amount of
this part is at first defined by the WMF annual planning. Even though by
the annual planning the feedback of the FDC and the GAC is taken into
account the final decision about the portion and amount of this part
lies entirely in the measure of the WMF. So, in the end only the WMF has
the sovereignty upon the funding.
By the nature of how our movement is organized all organizations inside
of the movement are independent organizations. And since we don't have a
charter that is agreed by all partners, and don't have a movement
strategic planning that is agreed by all partners, every organization
stands for themselves. From the WMF perspective of view the partner
organizations are business partners, and from this point of view the
calculation is easy: What do I pay them and what would I get back from
my investment. Under this condition it is just following the logic of
business that the WMF want to, or more precise, is obliged to keep a
short line on the funding it is giving out to other independent
The instrument of tightly monitored measurable business targets is today
a common sense in the business world, and is more and more applied in
the nonprofit world. It is taught in the preschools of the business
schools and is deeply deeply implanted into the consciousness of any
manager. If you miss your target for one quarter you are under pressure,
if you miss it for two quarters there will be a serious talk with your
boss, if you miss your target for three quarters you are fired. This is
maybe a bit exaggerated but basically a rule for all high and middle
management people. A company boss that fancy his idea of gather the
energy that usually go lost by braking and use this energy as an
auxiliary drive, and pursue his queer idea for years without real
return, while at the same time people in his industry branch think the
model is "an interesting curiosity", such examples are now a day very rare.
For our movement partners I believe the annual driven, short termed and
always conditioned funding is a problem. It doesn't allow the young
organizations to have a long term plan for their development. The
traditional funding model like what the WMF is using by FDC is more for
mature organizations. Young organizations need more funding model like
what the venture capitalists do. The lack of common movement wide
strategic planning only makes the situation worse. What venture
capitalists need is a vision, before they are willing to fund a new
I come back again and again to this point because I really think it is a
crucial point for the movement. There is no common, from all partners
agreed idea about where every body is going, what should / can they
contribute, what is their duty and what is their contribution. There are
some vague ideas but there is no common understanding. At this point I
want to come back to a response from Cristian Connsoni on my last post.
Cristian wrote: "It is worth adding that following the law and
jurisprudence in Italy (but mind that IANAL) the mere possession of
servers can be enough for an Italian judge to consider you responsible
of the contents. That's why Wikimedia Italia does not want any server."
I know where you come from, but I miss what you think where you can be.
You come from the current situation, but do you make any thought where
you want to be and how you can get there? I think this is the question
that all organizations, each for themselves should ask and answer, and
then all should put their answers together and see what everyone had
thought for themselves and if all the answers can be put together to
make a larger mosaic that makes sense.
Please let me troll a bit at this place (I was not allowed to in the
past years and now I feel the joy of a teenager who is allowed to stay
at home for the first time of his life while his parents are taking a
weekend off, and please apologize an old man share his infantile feeling
in a meant to be serious long mail). I read once (in an article about
searching for alien life) that one of the characteristics of life is to
change the environment in a way that makes it more comfortable for
himself. So you say the environment is hostile to you. Then answer for
yourself what would be the ideal environment and what could you do to
make the environment more comfortable for you and what resource do you
need to do so. Just as the start point for your strategic planning. Or
the other way around: think big, think about your friends and partners
and what can you do with them? Together? What become the idea of an EU
association? Who remembers CHIP? Yes WMIT in person of Illario took part
on that meeting in the youth hostel in Brussels. Yeah, when I wrote
about the European server in my last mail, I deliberately didn't put it
in a country, but said EU. And I still think an EU association (with UK
and CH and Amical part of it) makes sense in very many points of view.
Yes I know it is difficult to be at one point and think about where I
want myself to be. When I was a member of the WMF board I really felt
difficult to do this, because there were always current problems that we
were facing and I had never had time, energy, save imagination to think
something else. It was after I gave up my chair's person position and
really after I quit the board that I have time and most important of all
ease to think about the whole picture. And it is difficult to do this
kind of thinking because between the where I am and where I want to be
there is a blank gap. And it is difficult to imagine how I can bridge
that gap, especially if I don't have the resource to bridge that gap.
Long term developmental funding is exactly for bridging such gaps. It is
in some sense a complimentary system: You need a vision, and you need
the funding to approach that vision. Both are necessary. Currently, in
our movement, for most partner organizations, and for our movement as a
whole, non of them are in place.
And the current model of our movement funding doesn't help to create any
of them, and prohibits the creation of both of them. Looking back today
I believe that the change of the funding model in 2010 in Haifa actually
killed any realistic chance for a WMUSA, and maybe some others.
There are a lot of possible models how international movements,
organizations and associations do funding. I think the current WMF model
is one extreme. The other extreme is what the United Nations use. If we
have kept the model we used in 2009 we would end up into a similar one.
The funding of the United Nations is also the biggest weakness of the
organization. In certain sense the United Nations is entirely dependent
on the good will and the payment willingness of its member countries,
and especially the rich countries. The organization is weak and bias
because its foundation is weak and bias. And it doesn't help even if the
payment is regulated in the UN charter and all member countries signed
the charter. Personally I still find this a terrible model. With such a
model we just turn the game around and makes the WMF totally dependent
on the partner organizations. And it is a terrible model because it
doesn't distribute the funds according to need but according to geolocation.
So I come back again and again to one point, which is for me the central
piece of the movement, and which is lacking very very hurtfully: We need
a common understanding about the movement roles and strategic planning,
we need a charter so that every partner knows what his role inside of
the movement is, what is expected from him and what can he expect from
the partners in the movement, what is everyone contributing to the whole
movement, and according to this we can find out what everyone really needs.
There are a few guidelines for the WMF fund raising:
WMF wants to stay independent, it does not want to be dependent on a
few big grants
By acquiring grants, the WMF wants to keep its financial
sovereignty, it always tries to negotiate unconditioned grants and
actually broke some negotiations when it was clear that the grants
won't be unconditioned.
In the past years the financial planning of the WMF is always driven
by the 2010 strategic planning and its result. The start point was
always: what is the projection in the strategic planning? What are
the targets defined in it? What do we need to meet those targets.
The presentations of Sue to the board on annual planning always
start with a recap of the strategic planning and where we are.
I think what the WMF claims for itself as guidelines, it should also
grant to its partner organizations.
So in my opinion our funding model should be based on this planning and
agreement and charter and needs to give every movement partner the
resource and financial sovereignty that they realistically need to
fulfill their role. (I put here "realistically need" because naturally I
can imagine for every organization a lot of things they can need but
there is naturally also a constraint on what is possible and what every
organization is able to handle. I take most of us, if not all, learned
at first how to manage 10 bucks of pocket money before "a few" years
later we learned how to manage our income. And non of us is empowered to
give out millions from the cradle. I take this is common sense. But want
to be more precise for this special quibbling loving mailing list
*stretches his tongue*)
I see this more like a round table than what is currently the FDC. The
round table starts in the third phase of every movement strategic
planning: When the movement goals are set and the implementation
planning starts, that's the point where the round table starts to work,
it is an integral part of the strategic planning. The round table
defines a rough portion of what every partner is empowered to get during
the period of the implementation of the strategic planning according to
the roles, developmental plan and contribution the organizations planned
to accomplish during this period.
The FDC, or what a similarly composed committee would be, what is kind
of a standing committee of the round table, will do the annual fine
tuning according to the performance and achievement of every
organization. It should also do the controlling and adjustment during
the implementation phase. As this it needs to be really independent and
also needs to have the teeth to enforce punishment when a partner
organization violates the charter or is malfunctioning.
I won't claim that this is an easy approach. Discussion and negotiation
is never easy, is actually unnerving. It is not easier in the Wikimedia
movement than in any other associations. It always looks like it is
easier to have one organization dictating the whole movement. But I
think this is the wrong approach. The current status of the movement is
that with one exception the partner organizations stay weak and
underdeveloped. The WMF tried to fill in the roles that the partner
organizations actually should fill in but noticed very soon that it
cannot fill that role and retreated. In the end those works stay undone,
even in the rich countries which by itself theoretically have enough
resource to do it.
I think in the end the current model is devastating for the development
of the movement as a whole in the long term.
12th century Kadamba Jayakesi I, Velliapura site in present day Velim, South Goa .
There is lot of information translated by Kannada language experts from ancient stone inscriptions on Velliapura of which they themselves don’t know the whereabouts of this place, as this place being under Portuguese for 451 years is almost foreign to them. Very little information about Velliapura is written by world renowned Historian George M. Moraes in Kadamba Kula, the history of Ancient and Medieval Karnataka as he never came across the 'coterie'. This place is very well known to small number of members of the Coterie who come across the ghats to Velliapura Jayakesi site present day Velim every year as pilgrim and link Roque Santana ancestors as the descendant of Hangal section of this ancient family so as a search for this link as to why this pilgrims who come to pay homage to this ancient place call themselves as 'Pilgrims'? and If this site belongs to Jayakesi of Goa, why the family living in it is linked to the descendants of
As gathered from the available resource that the Kadamba sovereigns were hailed as 'Kadambarasa' meaning supreme or Gods or Godly or sovereign therefore the members of this coterie call themselves as pilgrims. The inscription stones in kannada found at Velim site tell that descendant of Jayakesi of Goa, Suriya-Deva'1345CE slain-ed sovereign of Chandrapura ' his wife 'Vinomaih-devi' was the daughter of 'Kadambarasa of Hangal', Purandara-Deva, died and was cremated in Velliapura by her nephew Jayesha, grandson of Purandara of Hangal. According to Haliyal stone inscription this same Jayesha founded a small timber business in Haliyal, over the centuries family owned and operated this business which was only source of income for them and their workers by hereditary who call themselves as coterie, was confiscated by the British Governor George Harris in 1840's and most of this pilgrims are the descendants of those workers . According to their
resource after the 1345 massacre the surviving Queen 'Vinomaih devi' moved away from the furious Mohammedans in Chandrapura present day Chandor and was taken into hiding in this royal compound by the foothills of Velliapura by the kingdoms blacksmiths, her father and brother joined her sometime thereafter. After their death the descendants were converted to Nazrani Christianity for fear of Muslims from there on they are in possession and actually still lives here on this historical site. therefore they hold that the family living in Velliapura site are the descendants of Purandarai of Hangal.
Jayakesi I son of Shashtha-Deva was a very powerful ruler, 12 century copper carvings tell us that princes and lords from neighbouring kingdoms traveled in to Chandrapur present day Chandor to pay homage to Jayakesi who was the Sovereign of Konkan. Velliapura viragal tell that Jayakesi I himself in a battle with his rival to retain this place Velliapura won a decisive victory, which was his southern capital, three horses stables and few officials residences were destroyed in the battle according to the Kannada version the days following the victory the wives of the commanding officers or soldiers celebrated in the royal compound by lighting and floating ‘ponti’ in the royal pond ‘Toloai’ in front of the capital building. According to Portuguese record of 1922, a complaint was filed with the Portuguese ‘Regdor’ by the ancestors of Roque Santana following the excavation of that toloai.
The Coterie has always objects to the family members contesting direct elections in present day Democratic setup saying it is of the people, by the people and for the people and this family is not, In1962 they objected to Roque Santan contesting the first ever election in Goa, earlier they hailed his 'Satyagraha' to bring Democracy to the people of Goa. I first visited 12th century Kadamba Jayakesi I, Velliapura, site in Sept of 2006, the compound gates were secured when I inquired with the neighbours they directed me to a man who was looking after the house, he had given me the email address of Roque Santana as (roquesantan(a)legislator.com). I had written to Mr.Roque Santana seeking an appointment at this site in Velim to which he replied to me that at that time he was in NY and he will get back to me when he returns to Velim, It was very sad to read the news from the news papers of his sudden untimely demise. A year later I wrote to his
daughter Maria Suhashini in London she gave me the London based house address of Venkatesha Upadhiaya who was member of the Coterie he never replied to me, I wrote to one of his sons in USA but no reply. People in Velim had told me that the Portuguese installed road side direction stone leading to the site went missing or destroyed in late 60’s and were never replaced by the Archaeological survey of India. It is important that the family or well wishers co-operate with researchers working within this above mentioned framework in the interest of South Indian history.