I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be * to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of some sort (public face) * share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on * internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf), * on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a work-wiki and a wiki shared by many), * on Foundationwiki (eg http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008) * on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
I am supportive of this idea, but can't we just make better use of current wikis like Foundationwiki and Meta-Wiki to achieve the same effect?
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hardly.
Meta is mostly a work-environment. Transforming it to be a rather public site would damage its own current role.
WikimediaFoundation wiki would fit that role better. However, there is much more to the Wikimedia mouvement than just the Foundation.
Currently, we do have a private wiki playing that role. That's internalwiki. The new site would simply be the public version of internal.
Ant
Casey Brown wrote:
I am supportive of this idea, but can't we just make better use of current wikis like Foundationwiki and Meta-Wiki to achieve the same effect?
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hmm... Who has accounts on internalwiki? Who has accounts on wikimediafoundation.org? Is wikimediafoundation.org meant only for official communications of the foundation?
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Hmm... Who has accounts on internalwiki?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Chapters_committee/Access_to_...
[Not sure why this is a subpage of Chapters Committee, it does not only cover chapters access]
Who has accounts on wikimediafoundation.org?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Listusers
See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_an_account_on_the_Foundation_wiki
Is wikimediafoundation.org meant only for official communications of the foundation?
It is the website of the Wikimedia Foundation, obviously. So, while it might include sometimes communications from chapters etc., it is probably the page where "WMF editorial judgment" is strongest (in relation e.g. to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects).
Michael
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Hmm... Who has accounts on internalwiki?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Chapters_committee/Access_to_...
"any individual that gets 80% support among the current members of internal who expressed their opinion" leaves that as a pretty ambiguous answer. Is that clause invoked very often?
Florence Devouard wrote:
Hardly.
Meta is mostly a work-environment. Transforming it to be a rather public site would damage its own current role.
WikimediaFoundation wiki would fit that role better. However, there is much more to the Wikimedia mouvement than just the Foundation.
Currently, we do have a private wiki playing that role. That's internalwiki. The new site would simply be the public version of internal.
I'm not especially clear on what the boundaries are here. Meta is a work environment, I suppose, but it's also public in various senses. Most notably, right now, it's the place where information about the board election is presented. What damage do you envision this doing to Meta's current role?
My inclination is to view Meta, much like Commons, as a project primarily to serve the rest of the larger movement. That means it may end up hosting a mixture of things, depending on what is needed. These areas may still develop a distinct community of their own, but I'm concerned about a tendency to exclude matters from their scope when they have legitimate value to the movement and no other obvious home. Deletionism is tricky enough in our projects whose scope is more clearly limited.
Opening up wikimediafoundation.org to more people, in conjunction with flagged revisions, is another possibility that's been suggested a few times. That may be good, although I agree it may not be sufficient and this is broader than just the foundation. But I'm not sure about the value of throwing more wikis at the issue, be they public or private, freely editable or more limited.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Hardly.
Meta is mostly a work-environment. Transforming it to be a rather public site would damage its own current role.
WikimediaFoundation wiki would fit that role better. However, there is much more to the Wikimedia mouvement than just the Foundation.
Currently, we do have a private wiki playing that role. That's internalwiki. The new site would simply be the public version of internal.
I'm not especially clear on what the boundaries are here. Meta is a work environment, I suppose, but it's also public in various senses. Most notably, right now, it's the place where information about the board election is presented. What damage do you envision this doing to Meta's current role?
My inclination is to view Meta, much like Commons, as a project primarily to serve the rest of the larger movement. That means it may end up hosting a mixture of things, depending on what is needed. These areas may still develop a distinct community of their own, but I'm concerned about a tendency to exclude matters from their scope when they have legitimate value to the movement and no other obvious home. Deletionism is tricky enough in our projects whose scope is more clearly limited.
Opening up wikimediafoundation.org to more people, in conjunction with flagged revisions, is another possibility that's been suggested a few times. That may be good, although I agree it may not be sufficient and this is broader than just the foundation. But I'm not sure about the value of throwing more wikis at the issue, be they public or private, freely editable or more limited.
Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not going to say it is a bad idea.
However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake.
A website should never have two different roles, in particular when roles may be conflicting with each other. That would be really looking for trouble...
WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website. It can not accept personal essays from non wmf members if the personal essay conveys a message not consistent with wmf agreed public message. Chapters are often much more politically involved than WMF, involved in lobbying, in such a way that might be unacceptable to WMF. Results might include 1) frustration from chapter who want to post something but get moderated by WMF staff; 2) loss of time for WMF staff who needs to understand (sometimes translate) a text from a chapter before validating its publication; 3) conflicting messaging 4) feeling of submission of chapters toward WMF
I am pretty sure it would not work. Two proofs being the following pages, opened by Jay for public participation from chapters * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008 (to post contacts made with the press generally) * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Speaking_2008
I can wait a couple of months and come back to you in september to show you how these pages evolve if you wish ;-) I am quite sure these pages will never be populated. Either because the chapter do not track such information. Or because it will be a duplicated effort with a page already existing on the chapter website. Or because chapter people will fail to see what their interest is in providing this effort.
-------------
Could this be hosted on meta ?
Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.
meta main page is meant to be super practical. Can you figure out a visitor coming to meta to understand better what wikimedia is, and finding this page ? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Please take a step back and try to figure out what all these funny little words mean for the layman ? CheckUser queries ? SUL ? 1.13alpha (r35980) ? Sandbox ? Babel templates ?
Versus a main page stating in a few words, "what is wikimedia ?" With links to the following pages * pressbook and press releases * is there a wikimeet soon in your area ? * conferences were wikimedia people are present this month ? * do you want to buy a wikimedia tee-shirt ? * is jimmy wales coming to your city in the next 5 years ? * events organized by wikimedia people this year * Wikipedia on DVD. Which languages ? Where to get them ? * etc...
Sure enough, all these pages could be hosted on meta. But navigation might get very confusing given that it include all other pages on meta. At a minimum, we need a separate main page that would be editable.
But I would imagine that this futur website will not only (or simply) be a wiki in the future. Other technologies might make sense as well.
---------------
Would it be a duplication from current chapter websites ?
Yes, in part. So it is necessary to avoid duplication as much as possible. However, I feel that the recent meeting in Netherlands seemed to imply that chapters and wmf felt there was not enough cooperation and sharing between organizations. A common public website is a beginning of an answer toward more "cooperation" and coordination.
I may be too early in proposing this and you guys are not ready in your mind. That's okay. I'll let it sink nicely and will come back in a few months. There is no hurry.
Ant
Hello,
[CCing to wikimediameta-l]
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not going to say it is a bad idea.
However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake.
WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website.
I concur ; wikimediafoundation.org is the website of the Foundation, and that's all.
Could this be hosted on meta ?
Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.
In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather.
Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g. [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just like on other Wikimedia projects).
I agree that meta tends to be a mess and it should be cleaned up. It's not a new idea (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta ) but the project was abandoned. Some months ago I was thinking about creating a new namespace (say Historical:) to archive all the old stuff and clean up the wiki a bit.
In a word, we shouldn't open a brand new community wiki just because we're too lazy to clean up the one we've already got for years.
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Could this be hosted on meta ?
Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.
In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather.
Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g. [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just like on other Wikimedia projects).
This sounds much more like potential progress than shifting things to a new wiki. I can see Florence's point about the challenges with Meta's main page making it not just a working environment, but a very strange-looking one. I think a more public-facing main page and separate working portal would be beneficial. I note that while I frequently visit Meta (much more than I edit there), I almost never go there through what is now the main page. I usually arrive through links to other pages, and then navigate to anything else I need to look at. I would almost say that its main page, by not knowing which of these purposes it serves, is presently failing at both.
--Michael Snow
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather.
On a related topic, it has been proposed to change the logo of meta-wiki. You're invited to express your opinion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel/Metawiki_logo_poll
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website. It can not accept personal essays from non wmf members if the personal essay conveys a message not consistent with wmf agreed public message.
Shouldn't personal essays from non-wmf members (*) be on their personal blogs?
(*) I'm going to interpret the phrase "wmf members" as meaning people working officially on behalf of the foundation, since the wmf has no members.
Chapters are often much more politically involved than WMF, involved in lobbying, in such a way that might be unacceptable to WMF. Results might include
- frustration from chapter who want to post something but get moderated
by WMF staff; 2) loss of time for WMF staff who needs to understand (sometimes translate) a text from a chapter before validating its publication; 3) conflicting messaging 4) feeling of submission of chapters toward WMF
The chapters have their own websites for this, though.
I am pretty sure it would not work. Two proofs being the following pages, opened by Jay for public participation from chapters
post contacts made with the press generally)
I can wait a couple of months and come back to you in september to show you how these pages evolve if you wish ;-) I am quite sure these pages will never be populated.
Are you suggesting it might work if you use www.wikimedia.org to host it? I'd say it's a flawed idea from the get-go, regardless of where you try to host it.
Either because the chapter do not track such information. Or because it will be a duplicated effort with a page already existing on the chapter website. Or because chapter people will fail to see what their interest is in providing this effort.
Probably all of the above. What's this have to do with anything?
Could this be hosted on meta ?
Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.
meta main page is meant to be super practical. Can you figure out a visitor coming to meta to understand better what wikimedia is, and finding this page ? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Please take a step back and try to figure out what all these funny little words mean for the layman ? CheckUser queries ? SUL ? 1.13alpha (r35980) ? Sandbox ? Babel templates ?
Versus a main page stating in a few words, "what is wikimedia ?" With links to the following pages
- pressbook and press releases
- is there a wikimeet soon in your area ?
- conferences were wikimedia people are present this month ?
- do you want to buy a wikimedia tee-shirt ?
- is jimmy wales coming to your city in the next 5 years ?
- events organized by wikimedia people this year
- Wikipedia on DVD. Which languages ? Where to get them ?
- etc...
Sounds like all stuff that can and should be on wikimediafoundation.org. But it's not going to get there magically - you can't just set up a wiki, tell people what you want, sprinkle a little magic pixie dust, and expect it to appear - that plan worked *exactly* once.
Who's going to organize this? How many hours a week are you volunteering to it? How many others can you get to commit to helping you? Will the foundation throw any money or staff behind it?
I may be too early in proposing this and you guys are not ready in your mind. That's okay. I'll let it sink nicely and will come back in a few months. There is no hurry.
In the mean time, please contribute this kind of information (neutrally stated) to http://wiki.p2pedia.org/ . It's all sprinkled with magic wiki pixie dust and ready to go. It's mostly geared toward Wikipedia (it's "the free encyclopedia about Wikipedia that anyone can edit"), but I'd be willing to expand it.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Add there unofficial Wikimedian organizations, too: From the seeds for the future chapters (all over USA, for example) and semi-official organizations like Wikinewsie is to the (Not The) Wikipedia Weekly, Wikizine etc.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Add there unofficial Wikimedian organizations, too: From the seeds for the future chapters (all over USA, for example) and semi-official organizations like Wikinewsie is to the (Not The) Wikipedia Weekly, Wikizine etc.
As someone who has been involved in organizing a New York City chapter (and has been watching other US efforts), indeed, I think this could be useful.
I agree with some that calling it the "Wikipedia Movement" might not be best. Maybe the "Wikimedia Network" (as suggested by Florence) or "Wikimedia Volunteers Movement" or something.
Another benefit I see could be an e-mail directory of dedicated Wikimedians in different cities and regions, available for press inquiries and outreach to academic and cultural institutions. This directory shouldn't be allowed to grow stale, and should be pruned regularly.
If and when this wiki is started, I would also propose an aggressive policy of merging and redirecting the clutter of half-formed idea pages which we will inevitably see. This site should be clearly oriented as a public face.
Thanks, Pharos
Hoi, The notion that the movement consists only of the Foundation and its chapters is a bit thin. There are many other organisations and people that I would consider part of this movement.. Wikieducator for instance is a great example of this, they have a bigger potential to do good for the less and least resourced languages then any of the WMF chapters.
So my question is, is this intended to be about WMF and its chapters or can this be larger then that ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that the movement consists only of the Foundation and its chapters is a bit thin. There are many other organisations and people that I would consider part of this movement.. Wikieducator for instance is a great example of this, they have a bigger potential to do good for the less and least resourced languages then any of the WMF chapters.
So my question is, is this intended to be about WMF and its chapters or can this be larger then that ?
Good point. I think that Wikimedia is the central part of a larger, free knowledge movement. And that Wikimedia (WMF and the community) should act in such way.
However, I think that the first step is to organize Wikimedia movement with open doors for others. So, some site which would organize Wikimedians already organized at different paradigms would be a good idea. And this means not only WMF and the chapters.
Milos probably has the beginning of an answer in citing sources such as Wikizine or the Wikipedia Weekly. Those would be totally interesting to cite or refer to. There are other initiatives that would be nice to mention as well.
I'd say that this should probably not be the website of Wikieducator, but there is probably nothing wrong in citing them or even writing a page about them.
A key word is probably "wikimedia". Wikimedia is a trademark, and those who are allowed to use it are probably those who should be in charge of this site. This include chapters and Foundation, but not wikieducator.
Ant
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The notion that the movement consists only of the Foundation and its chapters is a bit thin. There are many other organisations and people that I would consider part of this movement.. Wikieducator for instance is a great example of this, they have a bigger potential to do good for the less and least resourced languages then any of the WMF chapters.
So my question is, is this intended to be about WMF and its chapters or can this be larger then that ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, In the Wiki movement the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, its chapters are vitally important. When you want to call this a movement however, it is equally important to reach out and recognise the part other organisations and projects play.
When you call it the "Wikimedia movement" and invoke trademark rules to exclude, as a movement it will be limited. Its potential relevance limited. It is for this reason that I suggest to be clearly inclusive or exclusive. When we choose to be exclusive, there is still room for a wiki movement, it saddens me that the "Wikimedia movement" will be as a consequence less relevant in this wiki movement. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Milos probably has the beginning of an answer in citing sources such as Wikizine or the Wikipedia Weekly. Those would be totally interesting to cite or refer to. There are other initiatives that would be nice to mention as well.
I'd say that this should probably not be the website of Wikieducator, but there is probably nothing wrong in citing them or even writing a page about them.
A key word is probably "wikimedia". Wikimedia is a trademark, and those who are allowed to use it are probably those who should be in charge of this site. This include chapters and Foundation, but not wikieducator.
Ant
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The notion that the movement consists only of the Foundation and its chapters is a bit thin. There are many other organisations and people
that I
would consider part of this movement.. Wikieducator for instance is a
great
example of this, they have a bigger potential to do good for the less and least resourced languages then any of the WMF chapters.
So my question is, is this intended to be about WMF and its chapters or
can
this be larger then that ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and
wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In the Wiki movement the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, its chapters are vitally important. When you want to call this a movement however, it is equally important to reach out and recognise the part other organisations and projects play.
When you call it the "Wikimedia movement" and invoke trademark rules to exclude, as a movement it will be limited. Its potential relevance limited. It is for this reason that I suggest to be clearly inclusive or exclusive. When we choose to be exclusive, there is still room for a wiki movement, it saddens me that the "Wikimedia movement" will be as a consequence less relevant in this wiki movement.
I think that the situation is complex. We have a need to make wider movement, while we didn't solve problems in our house. So, maybe the time is to make something which wouldn't pretend to call itself as a "movement", but to make communication between different organized groups inside of Wikimedia better, as well as their presentation to outsiders. When we put it at the legs, we would be able to think about free knowledge movement.
Hoi, One of the wiki things is that you do NOT have to have your house completely in order, it is ok that you are working on it.. We are clearly trying to do our best and I expect that we will never find it good enough. When this means that we should not reach out, when it means that we cannot be part of the wiki movement, I would consider it a tragedy, a lost opportunity .. in some way a failure.
When the idea is to improve our WMF communications ... sure ... who is included ? what is the aim ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In the Wiki movement the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, its chapters are vitally important. When you want to call this a movement however, it
is
equally important to reach out and recognise the part other organisations and projects play.
When you call it the "Wikimedia movement" and invoke trademark rules to exclude, as a movement it will be limited. Its potential relevance
limited.
It is for this reason that I suggest to be clearly inclusive or
exclusive.
When we choose to be exclusive, there is still room for a wiki movement,
it
saddens me that the "Wikimedia movement" will be as a consequence less relevant in this wiki movement.
I think that the situation is complex. We have a need to make wider movement, while we didn't solve problems in our house. So, maybe the time is to make something which wouldn't pretend to call itself as a "movement", but to make communication between different organized groups inside of Wikimedia better, as well as their presentation to outsiders. When we put it at the legs, we would be able to think about free knowledge movement.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, One of the wiki things is that you do NOT have to have your house completely in order, it is ok that you are working on it...
Correct. But I am not suggesting a "wiki movement". I am suggesting that the organizations currently dedicated to support the wikimedia projects get a publicly visible site where they can explain what they are doing to help the wikimedia projects and where they can share practices and attract more good will and support.
We are clearly trying to do
our best and I expect that we will never find it good enough. When this means that we should not reach out, when it means that we cannot be part of the wiki movement, I would consider it a tragedy, a lost opportunity .. in some way a failure.
I did not call this "wiki movement". See the object of this message. It is explicitely called "wikimedia mo(typo)vement". Now, if the term "movement" is being a problem to you, we can call it "wikimedia network" or even "wikimedia organizations network".
When the idea is to improve our WMF communications ... sure ... who is included ? what is the aim ?
The idea I have in mind is not to improve WMF communications (whatever this might means). The idea is * to explain what we do and how we do it * to share ideas and practices amongst ourselves * to attract new volunteers
ant
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In the Wiki movement the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, its chapters are vitally important. When you want to call this a movement however, it
is
equally important to reach out and recognise the part other organisations and projects play.
When you call it the "Wikimedia movement" and invoke trademark rules to exclude, as a movement it will be limited. Its potential relevance
limited.
It is for this reason that I suggest to be clearly inclusive or
exclusive.
When we choose to be exclusive, there is still room for a wiki movement,
it
saddens me that the "Wikimedia movement" will be as a consequence less relevant in this wiki movement.
I think that the situation is complex. We have a need to make wider movement, while we didn't solve problems in our house. So, maybe the time is to make something which wouldn't pretend to call itself as a "movement", but to make communication between different organized groups inside of Wikimedia better, as well as their presentation to outsiders. When we put it at the legs, we would be able to think about free knowledge movement.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, One of the wiki things is that you do NOT have to have your house completely in order, it is ok that you are working on it...
Correct. But I am not suggesting a "wiki movement". I am suggesting that the organizations currently dedicated to support the wikimedia projects get a publicly visible site where they can explain what they are doing to help the wikimedia projects and where they can share practices and attract more good will and support.
When the idea is to improve our WMF communications ... sure ... who is included ? what is the aim ?
The idea I have in mind is not to improve WMF communications (whatever this might means). The idea is
- to explain what we do and how we do it
- to share ideas and practices amongst ourselves
- to attract new volunteers
I'm torn between saying "yeah, go for it", and saying "just give more people access to wikimediafoundation.org". The main fear with starting yet another wiki is that it's just going to be another place that has redundant information which quickly goes out of date and eventually contradicts information in other wikis. Having the information split across different sites also makes searching more difficult (especially since adding the word "+wikimedia" to a google search barely excludes anything).
Anthony
Hoi, So in essence you want to promote what we do, what we stand for. That is a splendid idea. :) Particularly in the countries were we are not known, where our notions are foreign, we need to explain our ideas about encyclopaedias, knowledge,,, and particularly community. This is where marketing would make a difference :)
There are many things that I think are good... I like for instance the blog aggregator, the blog, both the Wikipedia Weekly and the Not the Wikipedia Weekly., there is Wikizine ... I would not be surprised that similar things happen in other projects.... I would love to see a mash up of all the good ideas, all the good work ...
The question would be, how good a job do you want to see done ...
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, One of the wiki things is that you do NOT have to have your house
completely
in order, it is ok that you are working on it...
Correct. But I am not suggesting a "wiki movement". I am suggesting that the organizations currently dedicated to support the wikimedia projects get a publicly visible site where they can explain what they are doing to help the wikimedia projects and where they can share practices and attract more good will and support.
We are clearly trying to do
our best and I expect that we will never find it good enough. When this means that we should not reach out, when it means that we cannot be part
of
the wiki movement, I would consider it a tragedy, a lost opportunity ..
in
some way a failure.
I did not call this "wiki movement". See the object of this message. It is explicitely called "wikimedia mo(typo)vement". Now, if the term "movement" is being a problem to you, we can call it "wikimedia network" or even "wikimedia organizations network".
When the idea is to improve our WMF communications ... sure ... who is included ? what is the aim ?
The idea I have in mind is not to improve WMF communications (whatever this might means). The idea is
- to explain what we do and how we do it
- to share ideas and practices amongst ourselves
- to attract new volunteers
ant
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In the Wiki movement the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, its
chapters
are vitally important. When you want to call this a movement however,
it
is
equally important to reach out and recognise the part other
organisations
and projects play.
When you call it the "Wikimedia movement" and invoke trademark rules to exclude, as a movement it will be limited. Its potential relevance
limited.
It is for this reason that I suggest to be clearly inclusive or
exclusive.
When we choose to be exclusive, there is still room for a wiki
movement,
it
saddens me that the "Wikimedia movement" will be as a consequence less relevant in this wiki movement.
I think that the situation is complex. We have a need to make wider movement, while we didn't solve problems in our house. So, maybe the time is to make something which wouldn't pretend to call itself as a "movement", but to make communication between different organized groups inside of Wikimedia better, as well as their presentation to outsiders. When we put it at the legs, we would be able to think about free knowledge movement.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think that Wiki movement would definitely not be what I would expect out of a movement like this, as personally I do not realy care *that* much about Wiki. Wiki is a great tool, but not a goal. Free knowledge is. Wikimedia covers both, Wiki does not.
However, I realize that this is more twittering about choise of words. I think Gerard has a fair point somehow, and that partners in crime might be stimulated by such a cooperation. However, it is the current truth that these organizations are not a part of the organizational structure. And I think that is what Florence wants to cover. And it is definitely true that that organisational structure of Wikimedia should get a better face to the outside world. What is Wikimedia, what does it do etc, which has also been discussed on the chapters meeting in Nijmegen some time ago.
This however does not exclude a closer cooperation with like minded organizations, both on international and national level. I think that setting up a platform would be nice, and would stimulate the setting up of projects. This platform could be on an informal level, but maybe even on a somewhat more formal level such a platform might be worth while. I think that chapters, the foundation and those like minded organisations, including for instance Creative Commons, Free Software Foundation and some Wiki organizations which are working with free licenses, should consider this, and think about a shared vision on the future.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/6/8 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, In the Wiki movement the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, its chapters are vitally important. When you want to call this a movement however, it is equally important to reach out and recognise the part other organisations and projects play.
When you call it the "Wikimedia movement" and invoke trademark rules to exclude, as a movement it will be limited. Its potential relevance limited. It is for this reason that I suggest to be clearly inclusive or exclusive. When we choose to be exclusive, there is still room for a wiki movement, it saddens me that the "Wikimedia movement" will be as a consequence less relevant in this wiki movement. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Milos probably has the beginning of an answer in citing sources such as Wikizine or the Wikipedia Weekly. Those would be totally interesting to cite or refer to. There are other initiatives that would be nice to mention as well.
I'd say that this should probably not be the website of Wikieducator, but there is probably nothing wrong in citing them or even writing a page about them.
A key word is probably "wikimedia". Wikimedia is a trademark, and those who are allowed to use it are probably those who should be in charge of this site. This include chapters and Foundation, but not wikieducator.
Ant
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The notion that the movement consists only of the Foundation and its chapters is a bit thin. There are many other organisations and people
that I
would consider part of this movement.. Wikieducator for instance is a
great
example of this, they have a bigger potential to do good for the less and least resourced languages then any of the WMF chapters.
So my question is, is this intended to be about WMF and its chapters or
can
this be larger then that ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global mouvement. Main benefits would be
- to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
- share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally, information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
- internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and
wmf),
- on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
- on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
- on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the wiki page
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org