[Could people please make unofficial translations of this for posting on *.wikipedia.org wikipedias?]
I'm pleased to announce the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, United States. I am transferring to this new corporation the assets that follow:
1. All Nupedia.com/net/org/etc. domain names 2. All Wikipedia.com/net/org/etc. domain names
3. All copyrights in software or articles that were previously owned by Bomis, Inc. and already placed under a copyleft license. (This includes work-for-hire by Jason, Tim, Larry, Toan, Liz, and myself, as well as any other Bomis employees who may have worked on these projects as a part of their job, but doesn't include any work by those parties conducted on their own time or while not an employee of Bomis.)
(All that stuff was already under GNU GPL or GNU FDL, so the contribution of copyrights is basically a formality. Even so, we want to set a good example.)
4. Additionally, I am contributing all of my personal copyrights to work already released under GNU GPL or GNU FDL in Wikipedia and Nupedia to the foundation.
-------
For the time being, the two machines on which Wikipedia runs will be continue to be owned by Bomis, but my intention is to donate those if the tax implications make sense. I have to consult with an accountant on that, first.
I do NOT encourage you to make donations to the Wikimedia Foundation just yet! I am still working on tax exempt status with the IRS, and I have not yet set up a bank account for the foundation anyway. Those things will take a couple more weeks.
On my TODO list here are:
1. Complete the IRS process for tax-exempt status 2. Create forms for the transferance of copyrights to the foundation, if anyone wants to do that. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html for reasons why this might a Good Thing. 3. Setup a bank account for the foundation 4. Setup a merchant account for the foundation to make credit-card donations an easy option
I'll update everyone in a couple of weeks with the status.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
I'm pleased to announce the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, United States.
YAHOO! Ahem, sorry, no trademark violation intended. Great to hear that it's called "Wikimedia" - I really like the name.
I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot *cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).
Thanks for checking up on this, Jimbo, and good luck in dealing with the bureaucracy. Sorry for being intrusive, but sometimes it helps ;-)
All best,
Erik
On 20 Jun 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot *cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).
Perhaps even explicitly ask the editors to keep the story down until we're ready. (I don't know how to do that, tough.)
-- Daniel
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
On 20 Jun 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot *cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).
Perhaps even explicitly ask the editors to keep the story down until we're ready. (I don't know how to do that, tough.)
-- Daniel
I'm just wondering, "why?"
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Ilya N. wrote:
On 20 Jun 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot *cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).
Perhaps even explicitly ask the editors to keep the story down until we're ready. (I don't know how to do that, tough.)
I'm just wondering, "why?"
Erik Moeller gives the answer above. If we wait until the tax deduction stuff is in place, and until we have an easy mechanism for accepting donations, then the "wikimedia foundation" announcement will be more lucrative.
And since we're now a foundation, we can equate "lucrative" with "good". :)
-- Daniel
(this is being sent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)
This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation. The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left to stand along English lines.
The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I have been talking at length about this). Proper English spelling then is generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is used by billions around the world. Similar to Han characters, which can be read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.
Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to their proper pronunciation. Proper names have long undergone a normal Anglicization when translated to English. Attempts in different aread have been made to reform this -- the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin, being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese. Im not going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.
A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of the other languages combined. (Internet access issues, WP founded by English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers. There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills, should feel like they are unwelcome - (as long as they can take correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their articles - certainly integrated language tools -implementation might someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.
In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense - for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness of people to use them. Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.
Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be paid for being the common tongue. There will always be a struggle between the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different value systems. The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres only its own.
All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc) let "Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of Czechlosovakia. Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere. Why depricated? Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example) . Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.
WLBUY, -SteveM.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:18:00AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I'm pleased to announce the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, United States. I am transferring to this new corporation the assets that follow: ...
That's great. Now that this long-lasting issue has been solved, let's focus in the other ones that aren't, and that are really important:
- Unprivilegiation of the English wikipedia: The way it's setup now (http://www.wikipedia.org = english. others are ?.wikipedia.org) is totally discriminative , offensive and degrading for the other languages, that are placed into a not-as-important position. - Migration of all wikipedias to the phase3 software. There are still many of them, like the catalan one, running Phase1. This one in particular does have really good traffic of changes laterly, but the old software is driving it into an everyday more chaotic situation. - More openness in general, public discusion of decisions before them being made. - Distribution of the servers all arround the world, allowing every one of them to mirror backups for all the others, and avoiding this way any kind of censorship originated by having a single server unther the US laws.
Until then, me and a lot of people have freezed any kind of contribution. Myself, I'm specially angry about the english-as-the-main-language-and-others-just-secoundary thing, and about it being not solved even after years listening to people asking so.
By the way, if you're interested in a spanish language free encyclopedia, we mantain http://enciclopedia.us.es/, that was a spanish wikipedia fork done because of a group of people not happy about those and other wikipedia issues. It is actually way bigger (does have near 15.000 articles) than the spanish wikipedia, and hopes to be able to re-merge with wikipedia someday, after all the issues are solved. -- Because ten billion years' is so fragile, so ephemeral... it arouses such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness. ("Now and Then, Here and There"'s Opening)
rvalles wrote:
That's great. Now that this long-lasting issue has been solved, let's focus in the other ones that aren't, and that are really important:
- Unprivilegiation of the English wikipedia: The way it's setup now (http://www.wikipedia.org = english. others are ?.wikipedia.org) is totally discriminative , offensive and degrading for the other languages, that are placed into a not-as-important position.
Yes. This would be good.
- More openness in general, public discusion of decisions before them being made.
But this is what is preventing the request above. The discussion goes round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round............ then we all say "we're not getting anywhere, let's leave it a while". Then someone brings it up again, and STILL nothing gets done.
-- tarquin
rvalles rvalles@es.gnu.org writes:
- Unprivilegiation of the English wikipedia: The way it's setup now (http://www.wikipedia.org = english. others are ?.wikipedia.org) is totally discriminative , offensive and degrading for the other languages, that are placed into a not-as-important position.
WWW stands for World Wide Web - three *english* words. If other languages wish to replace there language codes with the equivalent abbreviation in their own language, I'm sure no-one will mind. (lwm.wikipedia.org for "le web mondial", peut-être?)
Until then, its fair for the *English* abbreviation to point to *English* wiki, n'est-ce pas?
Gareth Owen wrote:
WWW stands for World Wide Web - three *english* words. If other languages wish to replace there language codes with the equivalent abbreviation in their own language, I'm sure no-one will mind. (lwm.wikipedia.org for "le web mondial", peut-être?)
I don't really agree with this argument. 'www' is known worldwide as the indicator for the 'main' website of any organization. So although 'www' has its roots in English, it's really quite general.
--Jimbo
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:17:13AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Gareth Owen wrote:
WWW stands for World Wide Web - three *english* words. If other languages wish to replace there language codes with the equivalent abbreviation in their own language, I'm sure no-one will mind. (lwm.wikipedia.org for "le web mondial", peut-?tre?)
I don't really agree with this argument. 'www' is known worldwide as the indicator for the 'main' website of any organization. So although 'www' has its roots in English, it's really quite general.
I'm sure he was joking. Ha-ha-ha.
:-/
But the argument is overreacted by all means, All langauges are on the startin pages, <countrycode>.wikipedia.org/ leads to the national page, I'm very satisfied with this way of handling.
cya, grin Hungary
--- Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:17:13AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Gareth Owen wrote:
WWW stands for World Wide Web - three *english* words. If
other
languages wish to replace there language codes with the
equivalent
abbreviation in their own language, I'm sure no-one will mind. (lwm.wikipedia.org for "le web mondial", peut-?tre?)
I don't really agree with this argument. 'www' is known
worldwide as
the indicator for the 'main' website of any organization. So
although
'www' has its roots in English, it's really quite general.
I'm sure he was joking. Ha-ha-ha.
:-/
But the argument is overreacted by all means, All langauges are on the startin pages, <countrycode>.wikipedia.org/ leads to the national page, I'm very satisfied with this way of handling.
cya, grin Hungary _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I personally would like to see a global page at www.wikipedia.com, one that shows the global reach of the product (for example a world map of languages rather than countries) stats about the project, number of contributors, articles in each language, as well as links to each of the language wikis.
This, I think, would really separate the project from all other book or web based encyclopedias: none are multilingual to the extent of the W.
Effectively, this would put the pressure on other encyclopedia to match our multilingual "feature", but of course they couldn't.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
I personally would like to see a global page at www.wikipedia.com, one that shows the global reach of the product (for example a world map of languages rather than countries) stats about the project, number of contributors, articles in each language, as well as links to each of the language wikis.
This, I think, would really separate the project from all other book or web based encyclopedias: none are multilingual to the extent of the W.
Effectively, this would put the pressure on other encyclopedia to match our multilingual "feature", but of course they couldn't.
I actually believe that the multilingual environment is the second most important feature for distinguishing us from the other encyclopedias. The open contribution system is more significant. That approach carries the risk that some first draft articles will sometimes be highly POV or even outright goofy. At the same time this is the feature that allows us to react more quickly to world events in all areas of knowledge as well as to our own more highly opinionated contributors. An encyclopedia that is bound by traditional editorial structures cannot do this.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org