An open Wikimedia meeting will be held on IRC today.
An agenda is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_agenda#August_week_4 - please suggest additions on the talk page.
So far, the agenda includes: # Status of Wikicouncil # Wikinews: license and Chinese version # Seed wiki for potential new projects # Possible wiki closures: Simple, Klingon, Sep11, Others...?
If you are interested in any of these topics, please come and give your opinion during the meeting.
The meeting will be in #wikimedia-meeting. For anyone without an IRC client, I've created a temporary CGI gateway at http://irc.wikicities.com/meeting/
The meeting starts at 20:00 UTC (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Timezone_conversion) and should last no more than two hours.
Angela.
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
So far, the agenda includes: # Wikinews: license
I'm slightly suprised at this item. No mention of this issue has been made on the English Wikinews water cooler, nor on the mailing list. It's a little late to begin advertising it now, too.
A discussion about a project without actually consulting the people who work on it seems a little... odd. I for one am quite sure that the people who create content on the site would be quite interested in having some say in how their work is licensed.
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
So far, the agenda includes: # Wikinews: license
I'm slightly suprised at this item. No mention of this issue has been made on the English Wikinews water cooler, nor on the mailing list. It's a little late to begin advertising it now, too.
A discussion about a project without actually consulting the people who work on it seems a little... odd. I for one am quite sure that the people who create content on the site would be quite interested in having some say in how their work is licensed.
Dan
Well, it has been staying on the agenda for a lonnnnng time. And discussed many times on the mailing list (wikinews), with some editors contacting us so that the issue be fixed. Hence it being listed.
If you feel it would be a very very very bad idea to discuss it today as you would prefer that wikinewsies be warned sooner, please say it so. I guess we can find enough topics of discussion to fill up 2 hours. Open also means people should feel free to report a major issue to be discussed.
I spent two hours this morning trying to clarify many pages on meta.
Please see the starting page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I would love that this page is completed little by little to give a good overview of the Foundation in less than 32 ko.
Could anyone help making the paragraphs about "where do we spent money" and "how do we get money" give a good overview to any visitors, plus links for deeper investigation ?
Several pages have also been clarified. Such as the official positions and organigram ones.
I would also invite editors to comment on a draft of a role, the press officer one, which is currently in french (I'll try to translate it soon). I wrote it thinking of the french association press contact, but I think it could enhance the description of Elian's role quite a bit. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_Officer
Anthere
On 27/08/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, it has been staying on the agenda for a lonnnnng time. And discussed many times on the mailing list (wikinews), with some editors contacting us so that the issue be fixed. Hence it being listed.
Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over and over. I've also noticed that fewer and fewer people are involved in each round, probably because rarely anything ever comes of the discussions.
There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and the board talking about it though. The latter *might* result in some sort of action being taken, so in this instance the participation of the people who actually create what will be licensed might be a good idea.
If you feel it would be a very very very bad idea to discuss it today as you would prefer that wikinewsies be warned sooner, please say it so. I guess we can find enough topics of discussion to fill up 2 hours. Open also means people should feel free to report a major issue to be discussed.
Discuss it by all means - just please don't make any decisions. Something along the lines of "if the community comes to a decision, we'll ratify it" might be good :-).
I spent two hours this morning trying to clarify many pages on meta.
Please see the starting page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I would love that this page is completed little by little to give a good overview of the Foundation in less than 32 ko.
Could anyone help making the paragraphs about "where do we spent money" and "how do we get money" give a good overview to any visitors, plus links for deeper investigation ?
Several pages have also been clarified. Such as the official positions and organigram ones.
I would also invite editors to comment on a draft of a role, the press officer one, which is currently in french (I'll try to translate it soon). I wrote it thinking of the french association press contact, but I think it could enhance the description of Elian's role quite a bit. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_Officer
This is great, I'm glad people haven't given up on this :-). Although, as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on the WMF wiki, not meta. Two places covering the same stuff isn't great - they often start saying slightly different things over time, and then that raises the question of which is authoritative. There's only a few bits that need to be editable by just anyone, and therefore remain on meta.
Dan
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over and over.
This recent discussion was more about the fact that not all Wikinews' currently state they are in the public domain. Some accidentally got labelled as GFDL which might need to be fixed.
There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and the board talking about it though.
This is an open meeting, not specifically a board meeting. Jimmy isn't even going to be there.
Angela
Dan Grey wrote:
On 27/08/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, it has been staying on the agenda for a lonnnnng time. And discussed many times on the mailing list (wikinews), with some editors contacting us so that the issue be fixed. Hence it being listed.
Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over and over. I've also noticed that fewer and fewer people are involved in each round, probably because rarely anything ever comes of the discussions.
There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and the board talking about it though. The latter *might* result in some sort of action being taken, so in this instance the participation of the people who actually create what will be licensed might be a good idea.
This is the reason why this meeting is open to everyone. I tend to think the idea is not even to make the decision of which license to choose during the meeting, because I see no reason why a selection of people would make such a decision over all editors. But rather to find a solution to make it so that such a decision is finally taken.
Recently, on the french wikinews, someone even try to change the charter to indicate that all content on wikinews was public domain and its content forbidden to use for commercial reasons (?!?)
I think it is HIGH time that things are settled down.
If you feel it would be a very very very bad idea to discuss it today as you would prefer that wikinewsies be warned sooner, please say it so. I guess we can find enough topics of discussion to fill up 2 hours. Open also means people should feel free to report a major issue to be discussed.
Discuss it by all means - just please don't make any decisions. Something along the lines of "if the community comes to a decision, we'll ratify it" might be good :-).
I spent two hours this morning trying to clarify many pages on meta.
Please see the starting page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I would love that this page is completed little by little to give a good overview of the Foundation in less than 32 ko.
Could anyone help making the paragraphs about "where do we spent money" and "how do we get money" give a good overview to any visitors, plus links for deeper investigation ?
Several pages have also been clarified. Such as the official positions and organigram ones.
I would also invite editors to comment on a draft of a role, the press officer one, which is currently in french (I'll try to translate it soon). I wrote it thinking of the french association press contact, but I think it could enhance the description of Elian's role quite a bit. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_Officer
This is great, I'm glad people haven't given up on this :-)
Do I look like someone giving up on such things ? :-)
. Although,
as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on the WMF wiki, not meta.
I disagree. It is not best that this is on WMF simply because very few people edit WMF. When this page has reach a good state, it could be copied over there. But right now, we are very far from it. It has more chance to become a good page on meta, because they are more editors likely to work on it. So let's not try to hurry and do something of poor quality. WMF site will wait till the page is good. If we transfer entirely the page over there, it will never be good.
Two places covering the same stuff isn't great - they often
start saying slightly different things over time, and then that raises the question of which is authoritative. There's only a few bits that need to be editable by just anyone, and therefore remain on meta.
Dan
On 27/08/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
This is the reason why this meeting is open to everyone. I tend to think the idea is not even to make the decision of which license to choose during the meeting, because I see no reason why a selection of people would make such a decision over all editors. But rather to find a solution to make it so that such a decision is finally taken.
Recently, on the french wikinews, someone even try to change the charter to indicate that all content on wikinews was public domain and its content forbidden to use for commercial reasons (?!?)
I think it is HIGH time that things are settled down.
Well, on en.wikin most people seem to be quite happy with PD. Every so often says "you can't really use PD" but when pressed they never actually explain that :-).
Dan
On 27/08/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
. Although,
as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on the WMF wiki, not meta.
I disagree. It is not best that this is on WMF simply because very few people edit WMF. When this page has reach a good state, it could be copied over there. But right now, we are very far from it. It has more chance to become a good page on meta, because they are more editors likely to work on it. So let's not try to hurry and do something of poor quality. WMF site will wait till the page is good. If we transfer entirely the page over there, it will never be good.
That makes a lot of sense.
Dan
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
So far, the agenda includes: # Wikinews: license
I'm slightly suprised at this item. No mention of this issue has been made on the English Wikinews water cooler, nor on the mailing list. It's a little late to begin advertising it now, too.
It was discussed on the mailing list. The only reason I added this to the agenda was that I realised there had been discussion about this on the Wikinews list starting over two weeks ago that had not yet been resolved. Details are in this thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html
The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License says arguments will be collected until August 17. Since that was 10 days ago, it seems overdue for a decision to be made, or at least for it to be put on the agenda so more people are aware of it. An older discussion is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
Angela.
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It was discussed on the mailing list. The only reason I added this to the agenda was that I realised there had been discussion about this on the Wikinews list starting over two weeks ago that had not yet been resolved. Details are in this thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html
There's about four people on the mailing list. It has near-zero traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on the wiki.
The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License says arguments will be collected until August 17.
I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its existence was never circulated.
Since that was 10 days ago, it seems overdue for a decision to be made, or at least for it to be put on the agenda so more people are aware of it. An older discussion is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
I had a look at that the other day. The vast majority of the "votes" there are from 2004. What's more noticeable though is that hardly any of the users on that page actually are Wikinews contributors. To sum, nothing on that page is relevant to the situation today.
Dan
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
There's about four people on the mailing list.
Four? There are 236 people on that mailing list.
It has near-zero traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on the wiki.
On which wiki? If you mean meta, then it was there too (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License). If you mean the English Wikinews, then I disagree. This was an issue affecting the Spanish, Serbian, and Romanian editions of Wikinews. Where other than meta or the mailing list were you expecting a discussion about those?
I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its existence was never circulated.
It was circulated on the mailing list. 11 different people replied to it. 236 Wikinewsies could have read it and circulated it to their own communities.
I had a look at that the other day. The vast majority of the "votes" there are from 2004. What's more noticeable though is that hardly any of the users on that page actually are Wikinews contributors. To sum, nothing on that page is relevant to the situation today.
Which is the reason a completely new page was made at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
Angela.
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
There's about four people on the mailing list.
Four? There are 236 people on that mailing list.
Really? They're not saying much though, are they? The August archive:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/thread.html#298
About a third of mails are people trying to unsubscribe. That says a lot!
It has near-zero traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on the wiki.
On which wiki?
You know exactly which one I mean.
If you mean meta, then it was there too (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License). If you mean the English Wikinews, then I disagree. This was an issue affecting the Spanish, Serbian, and Romanian editions of Wikinews. Where other than meta or the mailing list were you expecting a discussion about those?
I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its existence was never circulated.
It was circulated on the mailing list. 11 different people replied to it. 236 Wikinewsies could have read it and circulated it to their own communities.
Erm, according to the page history that page was created on August 10 2005. You can read the August mailing list archive yourself - the link is above. As you can see, it was never mentioned. And only eight people replied to the discussion that did take place - and one of those was asking to unsubscribe!
Which is the reason a completely new page was made at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
Which as we've just established, was never advertised, so is in the chocolate teapot category.
Your own comment about it - "why another page of this?" - says it all.
Dan
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Really? They're not saying much though, are they? The August archive: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/thread.html#298 About a third of mails are people trying to unsubscribe. That says a lot!
The August archives aren't going to tell you very much since a lot of the archive (along with the ability to unsubscribe) was lost earlier this month due to server problems.
It has near-zero traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on the wiki.
On which wiki?
You know exactly which one I mean.
No, I didn't. I was discussing international Wikinews issues, and was assuming you were not serious about saying all discussion of those should be on the English Wikinews!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License It was circulated on the mailing list. [...]
As you can see, it was never mentioned.
That's completely untrue. The page was advertised on the Wikinews mailing list as the following extract shows:
On 8/10/05, Erik Moeller wrote on wikinews-l:
So, what do we do next? I have started a new page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License which collects the licensing options and the main arguments I could think of. I invite you to add arguments to this page. Perhaps we can find a clear consensus for one option, but if we cannot, we will probably have to resort to a vote to finalize the decision.
Angela.
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License It was circulated on the mailing list. [...]
As you can see, it was never mentioned.
That's completely untrue. The page was advertised on the Wikinews mailing list as the following extract shows:
On 8/10/05, Erik Moeller wrote on wikinews-l:
So, what do we do next? I have started a new page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License which collects the licensing options and the main arguments I could think of. I invite you to add arguments to this page. Perhaps we can find a clear consensus for one option, but if we cannot, we will probably have to resort to a vote to finalize the decision.
Hmmm, and how was I supposed to know that? Funnily enough, I can't tell what was and was not posted to the mailing list when all public records from period have been lost.
Look, as far as consulting with the Wikinews community goes, it's not to difficult to understand:
1. There are few active Wikinews contributors on the wikinews-l list 2. It appears to be English only (ie poking through the archives I see few/no non-English posters) 3. We don't have a lot to talk about, so therefore discussions tend to stay on the wikis.
So if you want to ask every Wikinews community about something, you post on the wikis. You go to the Water cooler on en. and post your query, and you repeat that exercise on each language edition.
Otherwise you *will not* reach the people who actually contribute. You may _wish_ that posting to the mailing list is sufficient to do that - BUT IT IS NOT.
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
So if you want to ask every Wikinews community about something, you post on the wikis. You go to the Water cooler on en. and post your query, and you repeat that exercise on each language edition.
Otherwise you *will not* reach the people who actually contribute. You may _wish_ that posting to the mailing list is sufficient to do that - BUT IT IS NOT.
Dan
Hi Dan.
I'll be frank. I think your request is not really reasonable. We have more than 100 languages. 8 projects. Thousands of editors. You can not expect Angela to go put messages one by one in possibly 300 village pumps. If you do expect that we do that, I suggest that we add a couple of full time employees to do so on the Foundation budget.
The "cheap" option is that everyone here makes an effort to ensure the information is spread everywhere.
Editors are not informed ? {{sofixit}} Here is the link to do so : http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler
Please help.
Anthere
So will http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License be updated to reflect the September 17 closing date... along with perhaps some new thoughts on licensing from the meeting?
Before we post to the water cooler, it would be nice to have a current page.
Perhaps an addition to the site notice would be helpful too.
-N.
On 8/28/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
So if you want to ask every Wikinews community about something, you post on the wikis. You go to the Water cooler on en. and post your query, and you repeat that exercise on each language edition.
Otherwise you *will not* reach the people who actually contribute. You may _wish_ that posting to the mailing list is sufficient to do that - BUT IT IS NOT.
Dan
Hi Dan.
I'll be frank. I think your request is not really reasonable. We have more than 100 languages. 8 projects. Thousands of editors. You can not expect Angela to go put messages one by one in possibly 300 village pumps. If you do expect that we do that, I suggest that we add a couple of full time employees to do so on the Foundation budget.
The "cheap" option is that everyone here makes an effort to ensure the information is spread everywhere.
Editors are not informed ? {{sofixit}} Here is the link to do so : http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler
Please help.
Anthere
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 28/08/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll be frank. I think your request is not really reasonable. We have more than 100 languages. 8 projects. Thousands of editors. You can not expect Angela to go put messages one by one in possibly 300 village pumps. If you do expect that we do that, I suggest that we add a couple of full time employees to do so on the Foundation budget.
I was only suggesting putting notices on the 14 Wikinews projects.
Dan
On 8/31/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
I was only suggesting putting notices on the 14 Wikinews projects.
For me putting notices on the 14 projects is impossible to be labelled as "only" (I speak now from my own experiences as ex-Election Officer who put notices on several projects - it took me over 3 days and even so there were a lots of projects who we haven't put notices)
But I admit we have different views and sense; if you think it is not a big deal, why you put those notices with your hand ?
Another technical solution is cross-project message inclusion - MediaWiki allows it technically but disabled if I recall correctly. Does it make a sense all WikiMedia project can include pages on a certain closed wiki, like foundation wiki and all project share a same noticeboard ? (a sort of shared sitenotice, but more lengthy message can be put in this project-wide). noticeboard).
On 01/09/05, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Another technical solution is cross-project message inclusion - MediaWiki allows it technically but disabled if I recall correctly. Does it make a sense all WikiMedia project can include pages on a certain closed wiki, like foundation wiki and all project share a same noticeboard ? (a sort of shared sitenotice, but more lengthy message can be put in this project-wide). noticeboard).
I asked dammit if this was possible a few weeks ago, as it would undoubtedly be a brilliant thing. He made some slightly pained noises... and that was it. I took it as a "no" :-).
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
On 27/08/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It was discussed on the mailing list. The only reason I added this to the agenda was that I realised there had been discussion about this on the Wikinews list starting over two weeks ago that had not yet been resolved. Details are in this thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html
There's about four people on the mailing list. It has near-zero traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on the wiki.
The wiki is only the english wiki. And for once, it would be nice that a decision for a project is not done entirely by its english version. Suggestion : please advertise this mailing list so that more editors participate to it.
The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License says arguments will be collected until August 17.
I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its existence was never circulated.
Erik. One probably goes back from the time Wikinews concept was being discussed. The second one is recent and an attempt to make a decision.
Since that was 10 days ago, it seems overdue for a decision to be made, or at least for it to be put on the agenda so more people are aware of it. An older discussion is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
I had a look at that the other day. The vast majority of the "votes" there are from 2004. What's more noticeable though is that hardly any of the users on that page actually are Wikinews contributors. To sum, nothing on that page is relevant to the situation today.
Dan
Best I can then suggest is that you organise such a vote and advertise it in ALL languages wikinews. Are you ready to do this for us ? It would be nice that the community makes a suggestion, which will be approved or not by the board, in the way new projects are.
What do you think ?
Anthere
My internet coonection stopped an hour for the meeting :~( and I had wanted to be there :(
Waerth/Walter
I am flying to Florida today and won't be around for this meeting, so someone please save the entire irc log for me?
Angela wrote:
An open Wikimedia meeting will be held on IRC today.
An agenda is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_agenda#August_week_4 - please suggest additions on the talk page.
So far, the agenda includes: # Status of Wikicouncil # Wikinews: license and Chinese version # Seed wiki for potential new projects # Possible wiki closures: Simple, Klingon, Sep11, Others...?
If you are interested in any of these topics, please come and give your opinion during the meeting.
The meeting will be in #wikimedia-meeting. For anyone without an IRC client, I've created a temporary CGI gateway at http://irc.wikicities.com/meeting/
The meeting starts at 20:00 UTC (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Timezone_conversion) and should last no more than two hours.
Angela.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am flying to Florida today and won't be around for this meeting, so someone please save the entire irc log for me?
That's OK. I'll even add comments by jwales. :)
Angela wrote:
An open Wikimedia meeting will be held on IRC today.
An agenda is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_agenda#August_week_4 - please suggest additions on the talk page.
So far, the agenda includes: # Status of Wikicouncil # Wikinews: license and Chinese version # Seed wiki for potential new projects # Possible wiki closures: Simple, Klingon, Sep11, Others...?
If you are interested in any of these topics, please come and give your opinion during the meeting.
The meeting will be in #wikimedia-meeting. For anyone without an IRC client, I've created a temporary CGI gateway at http://irc.wikicities.com/meeting/
The meeting starts at 20:00 UTC (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Timezone_conversion) and should last no more than two hours.
Angela.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org