Fuller report available here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/June_1-3%2C_2007
Ant
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
greetings, elian
On 7/5/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Is wiki*p*edia.com really the best place to talk about (other) project*s* and the Foundation? IMHO wikimedia.org should do that.
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
+1
Cheers, Arne
Arne Klempert wrote:
On 7/5/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Is wiki*p*edia.com really the best place to talk about (other) project*s* and the Foundation? IMHO wikimedia.org should do that.
Indeed. But here, the issue was what to do with Wiki*p*edia.com We could also put information about wikiproject, announcement of conferences organized by chapters on Wikipedia issues (such as quality, or education), print on demand stuff, advertisement, international drives for content gathering etc...
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
+1
Right now, no discussion. Nobody took the time yet to foster discussion and work on this. Which is also what mentionning it in report is meant to do.
Actually, I talked with Delphine about it some days ago, and she mentionned the future website http://wikipedia.de/ I concluded it was best to wait till this was up. Which is now the case. And my immediate comment is that this is not really what we should do on wikipedia.com.
Here is my suggestion. First organizing a public meeting on irc to discuss the issue. Interested people could just informally create a small group to work on a draft proposition, in the same way www.wikipedia.org was done 2 or 3 years ago. I think the way wikipedia.org was set was just great.
Elian, I would be very pleased if you volunteered to steer such a group.
Maybe a first proposition could be drafted before Wikimania so that the topic can be discussed there ?
ant
One possible usage seems to me the decision NOT to use it, just hold on the name to prevent others claiming it. In the future, the name might be usesful for (semi)commercial spinoffs, should the foundation decide to start such a thing. Ordering wikipedia t-shirts and such world shocking stuff ;-). Or serious spinoffs, under a affeliated but separate organization.
teun
On 7/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Arne Klempert wrote:
On 7/5/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Is wiki*p*edia.com really the best place to talk about (other) project*s* and the Foundation? IMHO wikimedia.org should do that.
Indeed. But here, the issue was what to do with Wiki*p*edia.com We could also put information about wikiproject, announcement of conferences organized by chapters on Wikipedia issues (such as quality, or education), print on demand stuff, advertisement, international drives for content gathering etc...
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
+1
Right now, no discussion. Nobody took the time yet to foster discussion and work on this. Which is also what mentionning it in report is meant to do.
Actually, I talked with Delphine about it some days ago, and she mentionned the future website http://wikipedia.de/ I concluded it was best to wait till this was up. Which is now the case. And my immediate comment is that this is not really what we should do on wikipedia.com.
Here is my suggestion. First organizing a public meeting on irc to discuss the issue. Interested people could just informally create a small group to work on a draft proposition, in the same way www.wikipedia.org was done 2 or 3 years ago. I think the way wikipedia.org was set was just great.
Elian, I would be very pleased if you volunteered to steer such a group.
Maybe a first proposition could be drafted before Wikimania so that the topic can be discussed there ?
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree, the better solution is the simplest solution.
Ilario
On 7/5/07, Arne Klempert klempert@gmail.com wrote:
Is wiki*p*edia.com really the best place to talk about (other) project*s* and the Foundation? IMHO wikimedia.org should do that.
On 7/5/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
greetings, elian
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia.com_draft
geni wrote:
On 7/5/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
greetings, elian
oh, that reminds me
www.spreadshirt.net
I met with someone working for this company. They would be happy to see what we can do together (such as the concept of a Wikipedia tea-shirt, with [[user:geni]] written on it).
What do you think ?
ant
Wikimedia Italia already has a small store selling several products with the Wikipedia logo on them: http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Gadget (the page is in it:, fr: and en:). The black shirts sell like hotcakes, apparently. While they're not personalized, it certainly does give you an idea of what's popular, espcially if you look at pictures from their latest wikimeet: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Raduno_di_Vicenza_2007 --Maria User:Arria Belli
On 7/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 7/5/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
Who is working on this? Could you point me to the discussions about it (haven't seen them)
greetings, elian
oh, that reminds me
www.spreadshirt.net
I met with someone working for this company. They would be happy to see what we can do together (such as the concept of a Wikipedia tea-shirt, with [[user:geni]] written on it).
What do you think ?
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
oh, that reminds me
www.spreadshirt.net
I met with someone working for this company. They would be happy to see what we can do together (such as the concept of a Wikipedia tea-shirt, with [[user:geni]] written on it).
What do you think ?
I think you should ask them what their relationship is with [[:en:user:Status2.0]] and [[:en:user:72.22.16.230]].
I know nothing about the company so I would suggest doing whatever Sue Gardner or Vishal Patel recomend.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
I would strongly object to this. The principle of least surprise would tell us to continue using *.wikipedia.com simply as a redirect to *.wikipedia.org.
This is the most consistent behavior, and least likely to cause confusion, unpleasant surprises, or broken links. (Remember too that we used wikipedia.com for years before switching everything to wikipedia.org, and we should never gratuitously break existing links.)
Now, if there's interest in changing the "www." portal for Wikipedia, that's fine, but different behavior between the .org and .com domains would IMO be confusing and thus detrimental to usability for the public.
(Don't forget too that many browsers and browser-like devices default to ".com" domains if you don't specify. Don't assume someone made a deliberate choice to pick the .com domain -- they should get a reasonable default, not be punished by getting something unexpectedly different.)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On 7/5/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Just seen in the report: "Next, we discussed what do to with the wikipedia.com portal, and agreed to the concept of setting up a specific portal, where we could explain more about the projects, about the Foundation, welcome services etc... all things to be discussed in length as wikipedians know perfectly to do."
I would strongly object to this. The principle of least surprise would tell us to continue using *.wikipedia.com simply as a redirect to *.wikipedia.org.
[snip the good argumentation]
Seconded.
If we change one it should be wikipedia.org and wikipedia.com should stay a redirect.
As for different information, I believe wikimedia.org should be the one with information about the organisation(s) and possibly the projects.
Oscar and Erik did ask me to think about it a long time ago, and I never found the time.
Delphine
2007/7/5, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
If we change one it should be wikipedia.org and wikipedia.com should stay a redirect.
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
As for different information, I believe wikimedia.org should be the one with information about the organisation(s) and possibly the projects.
I am not sure if we should not even unify wikimedia.org and wikimediafoundation.org. Make it as simple and easy to memorize for people.
greetings, elian
I disagree, I like wikimedia.org as the Mulit-Project portal. Wikimediafoundation.org is about the foundation and its projects/chapters/policies/resolution/etc. and Wikimedia is the portal for Wikimedia project.
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of elisabeth bauer Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 7:31 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Update board meeting report june 2007
2007/7/5, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
If we change one it should be wikipedia.org and wikipedia.com should stay a redirect.
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
As for different information, I believe wikimedia.org should be the one with information about the organisation(s) and possibly the projects.
I am not sure if we should not even unify wikimedia.org and wikimediafoundation.org. Make it as simple and easy to memorize for people.
greetings, elian
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
elisabeth bauer wrote:
2007/7/5, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
If we change one it should be wikipedia.org and wikipedia.com should stay a redirect.
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
That's very immature and unprofessional.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
That's very immature and unprofessional.
I thought it was funny. :) Perhaps because I have talked to the press a lot, and get very frustrated when, after all these years of being a nonprofit, we get referred to as "Wikipedia.com".
--Jimbo
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
That's very immature and unprofessional.
I thought it was funny. :) Perhaps because I have talked to the press a lot, and get very frustrated when, after all these years of being a nonprofit, we get referred to as "Wikipedia.com".
Just a quick note: The hyperlink to "www.wikipedia.org" contains a "w" too much and is thus not working.
Michael
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
That's very immature and unprofessional.
I thought it was funny. :)
It's funny as a private joke; it would be annoying as a way to give the finger to our visitors.
"Ha ha look at you you, followed a link someone else wrote or you typed 'wikipedia' in your browser and it sent you automatically to 'wikipedia.com' and now we're going to make fun of you! Ha ha! We think you're stupid!"
Particularly annoying since we used that domain actively for the first couple years.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Ehm, as i understood this, it was a joke actually for foundation-l people from elian, right? I guess she never seriously considered to put that really on wikipedia.com . But maybe my English is not so good, and I misread a serious statement for a joke...
BR, Lodewijk
2007/7/8, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Same for me. I misread wikipedia.com as wikipedia.org. Anyway, if someone wants partout to change something about www.wikipedia.com, I suggest http://tools.wikimedia.de/~elian/wikipedia.com/
That's very immature and unprofessional.
I thought it was funny. :)
It's funny as a private joke; it would be annoying as a way to give the finger to our visitors.
"Ha ha look at you you, followed a link someone else wrote or you typed 'wikipedia' in your browser and it sent you automatically to 'wikipedia.com' and now we're going to make fun of you! Ha ha! We think you're stupid!"
Particularly annoying since we used that domain actively for the first couple years.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGkRxawRnhpk1wk44RAtcHAKDQMvMAJ5l8geIF5WdlLQOL+51x1QCeJnAL 2dDS9VYW6aB/7hBk+SttwFs= =b5xO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/8/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
"Ha ha look at you you, followed a link someone else wrote or you typed 'wikipedia' in your browser and it sent you automatically to 'wikipedia.com' and now we're going to make fun of you! Ha ha! We think you're stupid!"
I agree that turning wikipedia.com into a big "we are not a dot com" portal would be overkill. But it seems perfectly reasonable to add a small but conspicuous notice (a little orange box, for example) to this effect at the top of the standard portal when people access it through the .com.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org