Well, it looks like someone spilled the beans about the google deal http://google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0233/ Could we update this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting since it is being linked to by /.? Since it's already public, I can't see any harm in keeping the community informed of the facts.
Le Friday 11 February 2005 15:20, Michael Becker a écrit :
Well, it looks like someone spilled the beans about the google deal http://google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0233/ Could we update this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting since it is being linked to by /.?
Done, but you could have done it yourself. It's a wiki, you know... ;o)
Since it's already public, I can't see any harm in keeping the community informed of the facts.
Yann
Yann Forget a écrit:
Le Friday 11 February 2005 15:20, Michael Becker a écrit :
Well, it looks like someone spilled the beans about the google deal http://google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0233/ Could we update this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting since it is being linked to by /.?
Done, but you could have done it yourself. It's a wiki, you know... ;o)
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
Whether these rumors are correct or not correct is irrelevant. For now, the only people aware of the details are the members of the board (in particular Jimbo, Angela and myself), and Google decision makers. And these details are still confidential.
Le Friday 11 February 2005 18:05, Anthere a écrit :
Yann Forget a écrit:
Le Friday 11 February 2005 15:20, Michael Becker a écrit :
Well, it looks like someone spilled the beans about the google deal http://google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0233/ Could we update this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting since it is being linked to by /.?
Done, but you could have done it yourself. It's a wiki, you know... ;o)
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
Anthere, the information i added come from the foundation-l mailing list, not "rumors from the Internet".
Whether these rumors are correct or not correct is irrelevant. For now, the only people aware of the details are the members of the board (in particular Jimbo, Angela and myself), and Google decision makers. And these details are still confidential.
But agreed that's better to keep quiet about this issue for now.
Yann
Yann Forget a écrit:
Le Friday 11 February 2005 18:05, Anthere a écrit :
Yann Forget a écrit:
Le Friday 11 February 2005 15:20, Michael Becker a écrit :
Well, it looks like someone spilled the beans about the google deal http://google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0233/ Could we update this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting since it is being linked to by /.?
Done, but you could have done it yourself. It's a wiki, you know... ;o)
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
Anthere, the information i added come from the foundation-l mailing list, not "rumors from the Internet".
The Foundation list is not on the Internet ? :-)
Yann Forget wrote:
Anthere, the information i added come from the foundation-l mailing list, not "rumors from the Internet".
Well, foundation-l is an unmoderated mailing list on the Internet, no? :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Yann Forget wrote:
Anthere, the information i added come from the foundation-l mailing list, not "rumors from the Internet".
Well, foundation-l is an unmoderated mailing list on the Internet, no? :-)
"You can edit this official board announcement right now!"
Side note: I spent all Saturday sitting in a booth in the Southern California Linux Expo exhibition hall demoing Wikipedia and talking to people about just what this crazy thing of ours is. Maybe half the people I talked to who already knew what we were (and that's most of the people with the courage to talk to me!) asked about the Google thing... It's kind of frustrating when "big news" breaks at this stage, because I don't really have any details to give them and have to hem and haw that it's still at the early offer stages and there's nothing solid. C'est la vie... :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Anthere wrote:
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
How are they rumors? The information removed was reported on the official Wikipedia Foundation mailing list, which is public. As the blog in question points out, the fact that there was a meeting between Jimbo and Google representatives was reported by you [1], and the fact that Google has tentatively agreed to give access to servers and bandwidth was reported by mav [2].
-Mark
[1] http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-February/002185.html [2] http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-February/002181.html
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
How are they rumors? The information removed was reported on the official Wikipedia Foundation mailing list, which is public.
Does not make it less a rumor necessarily.
....
and the fact
that Google has tentatively agreed to give access to servers and bandwidth was reported by mav [2].
I would not like to sound impolite in any way, but Mav did not see the google proposal.
-Mark
Anthere wrote:
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
I'm not sure I will continue to participate in Wikimedia Foundation activities until this is resolved. In particular, multiple reverts with no edit summaries from Jimbo, and locking pages after removing information is no way to run a Wiki. Meta is a place where any user may place information---you guys can censor wikimediafoundation.org if you want, but please don't fuck up meta.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I'm not sure I will continue to participate in Wikimedia Foundation activities until this is resolved. In particular, multiple reverts with no edit summaries from Jimbo, and locking pages after removing information is no way to run a Wiki. Meta is a place where any user may place information---you guys can censor wikimediafoundation.org if you want, but please don't fuck up meta.
*I* protected that page some time before Jimbo's first edit to it. The reason was vandalism from Slashdot trolls. This page is also being referred to by news agencies as an 'official statement' by the foundation. It is therefore *very* appropriate for rumors and even for known but sensitive info (that probably should not be public) to be removed from it.
--mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark,
I understand extremely well what you are saying. And I fully understand your concerns with regards to the freedom any editor should benefit on meta. I fully support this view as well.
Allow me to explain to you a little bit more the current situation.
First, Wikimedia Foundation is discussing the possibility of a deal with Google. However, the exact terms of the "current" proposal have not been publicly disclosed. There has been no official statement with regards exact terms either by WMF, nor by Google.
Second, since we, editors of Wikimedia projects as well as Jimbo himself, tend to discuss things a lot together, as we work very hard to reach consensus and keep the community informed, basic information was provided to editors and developers. Hence, there was a trend to inform editors of the existence of the discussion and of the plan to meet Google representatives.
Third, while it is obvious to us, wikipedians, that any individual wiki edit does involve only the responsability and opinion of its author, unless otherwise mentionned, it is clearly not obvious at all for people outside our little circle. As is, the board report posted here by Angela is clearly an official report from the board (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-February/002187.html). However, the article posted on meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting) is not an official statement by the board in any way. Angela very likely posted it to clarify questions asked by editors on the irc channels. There is absolutely nothing wrong in this. I personally discovered the page only the next day, following the link from the /. article. So I read this page after most bloggers.
Does it matter ? Well, we actually face something entirely new for Wikipedia. The fact that a board member can post something casually on meta to inform editors, and this post is considered a board official announcement, and relayed by many bloggers or newspapers as an official statement.
The issue is basically not whether the content is accurate or not, or complete or not.
The issues are rather : - Did the board wish to make a public announcement ? - If it had done so, would it have been done on meta ? - Is there a difference between family talk on irc only available on editors logs, and statement on a wiki page which can be linked by everyone in the world ? - Does an official non official public statement hurt the likelyhood of the deal or not ? - Now that most editors consider it official, what if the other board members do not fully agree with it ?
And mostly :
- Now that bloggers and newspapers consider it official, does the Foundation have a right to "control" what appears to be official statement by itself ?
To the last question, I definitly answer yes. And I support Mav protecting the page in question.
And last point
- How are such events where casual discussions are reported as official by public worldwide media gonna impact the future transparency of decision making which "could be" a little bit sensible ?
So... please Mark, before complaining of censorship (you may absolutely open a parallel page and comment on the talk page), I will ask you to carefully consider whether you think it proper that a page called by a dozen of major newspapers or blogs and presented as an official page, may be edited by anyone.
Someone suggested that I redirect the page to wikimediafoundation.org, but if I had done so, the talk page would not have been available any more. So, I discarded that proposition.
I'll also remind that Jimbo, Angela and I are also individuals, and that in most cases, what we say reflect our own opinion, rather than the collective opinion of the board.
All what is above is only my opinion, not an official statement by the Foundation :-)
Anthere
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Jimbo removed the information added by Yann, and I will ask you not to add things which are rumors from the Internet, but will appear official as soon as WE report them.
I'm not sure I will continue to participate in Wikimedia Foundation activities until this is resolved. In particular, multiple reverts with no edit summaries from Jimbo, and locking pages after removing information is no way to run a Wiki. Meta is a place where any user may place information---you guys can censor wikimediafoundation.org if you want, but please don't fuck up meta.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I'm not sure I will continue to participate in Wikimedia Foundation activities until this is resolved. In particular, multiple reverts with no edit summaries from Jimbo
Jimbo made one revert and I explained to Yann by email why the page was locked.
and locking pages after removing information is no way to run a Wiki.
The page was locked before that, and was done for reasons of vandalism.
Anthere wrote:
However, the article posted on meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting) is not an official statement by the board in any way. Angela very likely posted it to clarify questions asked by editors on the irc channels.
I wrote it after it was being asked about on the mailing list. I thought it was a better idea to have something there as opposed to nothing but rumors on IRC. The page basically says nothing that wasn't already on the mailing list.
I personally discovered the page only the next day, following the link from the /. article.
The page was mentioned on this mailing list before it was on Slashdot.
The fact that a board member can post something casually on meta to inform editors, and this post is considered a board official announcement...
I believe the fact that a board member did it is irrelevant. Nowhere this page is reported mentions that it was written by me. In fact, off-IRC, this is the first time it's been said that I wrote the page. I doubt, therefore, that the reporters thinking of it as official are basing this view on who wrote it. Most people wouldn't know to check the page history. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd have seen any page on meta as official, regardless of authorship.
- Did the board wish to make a public announcement ?
No. It would have been phrased as an announcement if that had been the case.
- If it had done so, would it have been done on meta ?
No. Official things should go on the foundation wiki.
- Is there a difference between family talk on irc only available on
editors logs, and statement on a wiki page which can be linked by everyone in the world ?
No. Much of the information reported on the mailing list and Slashdot came from IRC anyway.
- Does an official non official public statement hurt the likelihood of
the deal or not ?
Perhaps Jimbo can answer that since he's been in contact with them since the Slashdot article.
- Now that most editors consider it official, what if the other board
members do not fully agree with it ?
What exactly do you not agree with?
- Now that bloggers and newspapers consider it official, does the
Foundation have a right to "control" what appears to be official statement by itself ?
Perhaps adding a "this is not official" notice would be better?
All what is above is only my opinion, not an official statement by the Foundation :-)
Ditto.
Angela.
Angela a écrit:
I personally discovered the page only the next day, following the link from the /. article.
The page was mentioned on this mailing list before it was on Slashdot.
Still, I discovered /. before I read all the mails on the ml :-) I read the mailing lists through gname, so only from home and not all the time. Plus there is a time discrepancy between the moment a mail is posted and it appears on gname. So, no sorry, I discovered it through /. :-) Either way, it does not matter, I just meant to clarify that this was not an official statement.
- Did the board wish to make a public announcement ?
No. It would have been phrased as an announcement if that had been the case.
- If it had done so, would it have been done on meta ?
No. Official things should go on the foundation wiki.
- Is there a difference between family talk on irc only available on
editors logs, and statement on a wiki page which can be linked by everyone in the world ?
No. Much of the information reported on the mailing list and Slashdot came from IRC anyway.
Yes. This is exactly what I explained to Mark.
However, this is not what the outside world understand, because they just do not work as we do.
Look at a few announcements :
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/40554.html "The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates the Wikipedia project among others, said Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Latest News about Google has offered to host part of the free encyclopedia's content. "
or
"The foundation posted a short announcement on its Web site, which said that the terms (as yet undisclosed) were being considered by the Wikimedia board and that the group would meet with Google sometime in March."
with a link the page you created.
According to this journalist, what you posted (and that could have been posted by any of us, or even an anonymous person) was interpretated by "The foundation posted".
But the Foundation did not posted, you did.
Several bloggers just interpret the page the same way as this journal does. The page casually created on meta is said an official announcement. It is not.
I do not say it is critical in any way.
But that mean what any of us say may be interpretated as "official", and if this is seen official, then it is logical at least that it is protected.
Otherwise, it should just be deleted.
- Now that most editors consider it official, what if the other board
members do not fully agree with it ?
What exactly do you not agree with?
I was asked to keep details confidential.
- Now that bloggers and newspapers consider it official, does the
Foundation have a right to "control" what appears to be official statement by itself ?
Perhaps adding a "this is not official" notice would be better?
This is too late I fear :-) But why not ?
But Angela, in any cases, I think we have to think about this for the future.
All what is above is only my opinion, not an official statement by the Foundation :-)
Ditto.
Angela.
I must insist I do not criticize you in any way for setting up that page. The only points which concerns me in the long term are 1) that meta is used as a source of official news which are not and 2) that non official news transformed in official news should be protected without being called censorship.
Anthere wrote:
[some stuff]
Thanks for the reply; it does seem reasonable enough. I'm pretty uncomfortable with any sort of secrecy, but I'm not going to argue that it's absolutely unallowable in all cases. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with large-budget nonprofit organizations to begin with, especially those with paid employees, and Wikimedia is starting to creep up into that range, so there seem to be some basic philosophical differences in the current direction of the organization and the sort of organization I'd prefer to support.
-Mark
Michael Becker wrote:
Well, it looks like someone spilled the beans about the google deal http://google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0233/ Could we update this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting since it is being linked to by /.? Since it's already public, I can't see any harm in keeping the community informed of the facts.
What'd be *really* great is if they also donated a working search feature. =D
(Something like a more controllable version of "site:xx.wikipedia.org" that distinguished namespaces would be sufficient.)
-Mark
What'd be *really* great is if they also donated a working search feature. =D
They will put a search feature on their website, i am sure. I think that Google donates to us because MSN has the encarta-searc and so Google needs something, too.
Leon
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
What'd be *really* great is if they also donated a working search feature. =D
Only if it is free software.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Mayer schrieb: | --- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: | |>What'd be *really* great is if they also donated a working search |>feature. =D | | | Only if it is free software.
Well, they *could* feed their normal search service the data from a DB slave located at the Google farm. That would be (almost) live.
Then, they could let us grab the google search results via SOAP and display them as our own, with a little "search powered by google" maybe.
Magnus
On Saturday 12 February 2005 16:25, Magnus Manske wrote:
Well, they *could* feed their normal search service the data from a DB slave located at the Google farm. That would be (almost) live.
Perhaps you should ask them to donate you a Google Mini: http://www.google.com/enterprise/mini/
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org