The next Wikimedia fund drive will start on Friday 9 December and will end on Saturday 31 December. There is no specific goal, but we would like to at least cover the budget for the rest of this year and the first quarter of next year. That means we need at least $500,000.
I therefore encourage all language communities to help make this drive a success by translating the fund drive documents and placing fund drive notices on their wikis when the drive begins.
The translation coordination page is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4_planning/Translations
The General coordinate page is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4_planning
Thank you for any help you can offer. :)
Daniel Mayer, Wikimedia CFO
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Daniel Mayer wrote:
The next Wikimedia fund drive will start on Friday 9 December and will end on Saturday 31 December. There is no specific goal, but we would like to at least cover the budget for the rest of this year and the first quarter of next year. That means we need at least $500,000.
Half a million ....... coughs ......... I really cross my fingers that we make that.
Waerth/Walter
On 12/3/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
The next Wikimedia fund drive will start on Friday 9 December and will end on Saturday 31 December. There is no specific goal, but we would like to at least cover the budget for the rest of this year and the first quarter of next year. That means we need at least $500,000.
Are we accepting credit card donations yet?
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/3/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
The next Wikimedia fund drive will start on Friday 9 December and will end on Saturday 31 December. There is no specific goal, but we would like to at least cover the budget for the rest of this year and the first quarter of next year. That means we need at least $500,000.
Are we accepting credit card donations yet?
We have accepted credit card donations for years, via PayPal's interface.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 12/4/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
We have accepted credit card donations for years, via PayPal's interface.
So we have. Clearly I am confused...
-- Sam
What is this:
"This site has restricted the ability to create new pages. If you wish to create a new page, you must first create an account or log in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin.
If you'd rather not create an account or log in, consider listing a request for someone else to create the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles."
Since when is this wikimedia policy to restrict this?
Waerth/Walter
Hi Wikipedians,
Walter van Kalken schrieb am 05.12.2005 21:48:
"This site has restricted the ability to create new pages. If you wish to create a new page, you must first create an account or log in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin.
If you'd rather not create an account or log in, consider listing a request for someone else to create the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles."
Since when is this wikimedia policy to restrict this?
Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033880.html
Bye, Tim.
Walter van Kalken wrote:
What is this:
"This site has restricted the ability to create new pages. If you wish to create a new page, you must first create an account or log in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin.
If you'd rather not create an account or log in, consider listing a request for someone else to create the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles."
Since when is this wikimedia policy to restrict this?
Waerth/Walter
Just to clarify once and for all.
The policy has been decided by Jimbo. This is within his role as a moral leader. This is within your role to criticize, accept, complain or do whatever you feel is best as people and as community.
But this is not a Foundation decision, or rather, this has not been a decision by the board. So, I would not call it a wikimedia policy.
Currently, it is limited to the english wikipedia.
I am not entirely sure there has been a system set into place to analyse the impact of such a decision. It is probably to the english-community to try to measure this the best they can and to appreciate the benefits and drawbacks itself.
I suppose other communities will be given the opportunity to make their own decisions according to cultural background and state of development.
Anthere
2005/12/6, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Currently, it is limited to the english wikipedia.
...
I suppose other communities will be given the opportunity to make their own decisions according to cultural background and state of development.
In smaller Wikipedias, where every edit is viewed by somebody else, there is no need of such system. It might even be harmful. In larger Wikipedias, like the English, it's a good idea, I believe.
Sl.
-- Esperu cxiam!
V. Ivanov pravi:
In smaller Wikipedias, where every edit is viewed by somebody else, there is no need of such system. It might even be harmful. In larger Wikipedias, like the English, it's a good idea, I believe.
I agree that preventing anonymous users to contribute new articles on smaller wikipedias is harmful. Recently, we get a lot of very good articles on Slovene wikipedia from anonymous IPs.
I can't see why would it be a good idea in English, but I don't really care, as long as this policy stays out of my favourite wikipedia.
On 12/11/05, Roman Maurer roman.maurer@amis.net wrote:
I can't see why would it be a good idea in English, but I don't really care, as long as this policy stays out of my favourite wikipedia. -- Pozdrav, Roman
As a user of the English Wikipedia who can't say he's very productive, and doesn't even believe in objectivity, I have to say that the level of vandalism is pretty bad.
While the policy is only that if you want to create an article or stub you should take responsibility for it by creating an an account, which seems fine to me, I've seen a number of pages of people I'm familiar with who have what is best described as a cult following (if you don't like them you're not likely to care about them) either defaced totally or with phrases or paragraphs in them intended to incite.
I see this as a positive development because it reinforces courtesy and responsibility, both of which the Wikipedia itself requires but can't necessarily enforce. I certainly hope your favorite Wikipedia never requires it.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org