Here is a run-down of what I feel should be the ground rules for negotiation.
What we concede; 1) Make sure this is done in Spanish 2) Ask them what we need to do in order to get them back into the Wikipedia community. 3) Promise that we will never have any ads. 4) We will strive to make Wikipedia as non-U.S./English-centric as possible and ask them what we should do in order to accomplish this. 5) Explain the benefits of being part of the more general Wikipedia community (inter-language links that work both ways, funding, publicity, cross-traffic and cross-collaboration and contributions) 6) State that we have no intention of ever removing es.wikipedia.com but we could point that URL to the Seville server is they wish to stay on that server.
What we want; 1) Have them formally rejoin our project by changing their primary name back to Wikipedia or a convenient Spanish version of that word ("Huiquipedia" maybe). 2) For them to use Phase III software. 3) Provide inter-language links to all Wikipedia language projects. 4) For them to use Intl-wiki-L. 5) Update their about page to remove misleading statements about Wikipedia, especially the English Wikipedia.
What would be nice; 1) For them to return to our server.
If negotiations break-down; We set-up es.wikipedia.org with Phase III and ignore EL. OR We set-up es.wikipedia.org with Phase III and provide el: inter-language links to their project.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is a run-down of what I feel should be the ground rules for negotiation.
I think such a negotiation would go much better if we were at least in the process of setting up a non-profit free encyclopedia foundation. Otherwise, the perceptions that the American megacorporation Bomis intends to turn Wikipedia into a vast money-making empire will remain.
What we concede;
- Make sure this is done in Spanish
- Ask them what we need to do in order to get them
back into the Wikipedia community. 3) Promise that we will never have any ads. 4) We will strive to make Wikipedia as non-U.S./English-centric as possible and ask them what we should do in order to accomplish this. 5) Explain the benefits of being part of the more general Wikipedia community (inter-language links that work both ways, funding, publicity, cross-traffic and cross-collaboration and contributions) 6) State that we have no intention of ever removing es.wikipedia.com but we could point that URL to the Seville server is they wish to stay on that server.
7) Make .org the default for all language projects. I realize that this means getting Phase III rolled out on all the Wikipedias, as the internal link names need to be changed.
What we want;
- Have them formally rejoin our project by changing
their primary name back to Wikipedia or a convenient Spanish version of that word ("Huiquipedia" maybe). 2) For them to use Phase III software. 3) Provide inter-language links to all Wikipedia language projects. 4) For them to use Intl-wiki-L. 5) Update their about page to remove misleading statements about Wikipedia, especially the English Wikipedia.
6) To integrate the articles at es.wikipedia.com with their own.
What would be nice;
- For them to return to our server.
If negotiations break-down; We set-up es.wikipedia.org with Phase III and ignore EL. OR We set-up es.wikipedia.org with Phase III and provide el: inter-language links to their project.
I vote for option 2 in this case.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
- State that we have no intention of ever removing es.wikipedia.com but we
could point that URL to the Seville server is they wish to stay on that server.
I don't think this is acceptable. Without sever unity, there is no way for us to enforce openness. If they start to ban people for political reasons, forming a 'cabal', we would be powerless to stop them.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
- State that we have no intention of ever removing
es.wikipedia.com > > but we could point that URL to the Seville server is they wish to
stay on that server.
I don't think this is acceptable. Without sever unity, there is no way for us to enforce openness. If they start to ban people for political reasons, forming a 'cabal', we would be powerless to stop them.
In other words: we want them back on our US server, so that we, and not they, are in control. We know who should be banned, but we don't trust them with such decisions. Maybe we should say that clearly at the beginning; it will shorten the discussion considerably.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
In other words: we want them back on our US server, so that we, and not they, are in control. We know who should be banned, but we don't trust them with such decisions. Maybe we should say that clearly at the beginning; it will shorten the discussion considerably.
This is a distortion of my position, but definitely we need to make perfectly clear that local control does _not_ extend to such issues as allowing various wikipedias to become non-NPOV, or allowing various wikipedias to abandon the spirit of openness. If they don't like that restriction, then that's fine -- they can do their own non-NPOV and non-open thing. We're better off without them.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
wikipedias to abandon the spirit of openness. If they don't like that restriction, then that's fine -- they can do their own non-NPOV and non-open thing. We're better off without them.
While perfectly logical, this kind of argument is funny, considering that their break away was motivated by a perceived commercial or corporate touch of Wikipedia. It seems likely to me that the EL people would set higher standards ("be more picky") than Wikipedia for who they will cooperate with.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
- State that we have no intention of ever removing es.wikipedia.com but we
could point that URL to the Seville server is they wish to stay on that server.
I don't think this is acceptable. Without sever unity, there is no way for us to enforce openness. If they start to ban people for political reasons, forming a 'cabal', we would be powerless to stop them.
And they would be powerless to stop you.
You want to maintain ultimate control over any [[es:]]. The whole point of the fork is that they don't want you to maintain ultimate control over their enciclopedia. This is a pretty significant impasse.
When we get a nonprofit set up, will you maintain ultimate control? Or will the nonprofit raise funds and pay you for server usage? If you won't maintain ultimate control anymore, then that would be the time to approach EL.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
When we get a nonprofit set up, will you maintain ultimate control?
The nonprofit will maintain ultimate control, which means that the board of directors will maintain ultimate control. I will be on the board of directors, of course. And I will pack the board of directors with people who agree with me about NPOV, etc.
My goal is that the things I regard as of fundamental importance are preserved. It would be a great tragedy to me to have spent all this money to jump start my vision, only to see it corrupted by poor choices about a nonprofit organization.
Suppose I turn everything over to the nonprofit and I'm immediately outvoted and new policies are insitituted to create a hierarchical system with a controlling cabal with a particular political agenda. That would be tragic to me.
So, for obvious reasons, I will carefully set up the organization so that my control of these fundamentals is continued, at least by proxy. (I.E., I won't be inviting '24' or Helga onto the board of directors!)
Or will the nonprofit raise funds and pay you for server usage?
There will be no need to pay me for server usage for the foreseeable future. Probably I will not be buying any more $3000 servers. Probably.
If you won't maintain ultimate control anymore, then that would be the time to approach EL.
That's probably right. But they will have to understand that the nonprofit would exercise ultimate control, which indirectly means me.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
If you won't maintain ultimate control anymore, then that would be the time to approach EL.
That's probably right. But they will have to understand that the nonprofit would exercise ultimate control, which indirectly means me.
Presumably they can get on the board as well, which should work better.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org