body:
I stand corrected. I mean really corrected. I mean I think I'm going to go
hide now.

On 11/6/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> WMF has nowhere close to $500k in its bank account(s).
>
> In a message dated 11/6/2006 10:58:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> messedrocker at gmail.com writes:
>
> WMF has  around $500k in its bank account last I heard, though they're
> going
> to be  spending AT LEAST that on servers. Keep in mind nothing I say  is
> official.
>
> Downtime? I think the concern is more with slowness  than downtime.
>
> On 11/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> > How much downtime have we had recently, and is that  significant
> compared
> > to
> > sites with similar  popularities?
> >
> > How many new servers do we need right now? How  many over the next few
> > months?
> >
> > On 11/6/06, Anthony  <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/6/06,  Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > A good  fundraising appeal succinctly presents some of the great
> things
> > >  we previously have done
> > > > (with an emphasis on what has been  done since the last fundraiser)
> and
> > > presents some ideas on  what
> > > > can be done in the future with additional funds. The  point is to
> > impress
> > > potential donors on our
> > >  > track record and instill in them confidence that their support
> will  be
> > > well spent and they can be
> > > > part of something  revolutionary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How much does  Wikimedia currently have in cash?
> > >
> > > How much does the  Foundation need for the next 6 months?
> > >
> > >  Anthony
> > > _______________________________________________
> >  > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >  > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >
> > _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >  http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l  mailing  list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Help needed to develop fundraising appeal ideas


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little

body:
On 06/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> >On 06/11/06, pekka.gronow at yle.fi <pekka.gronow at yle.fi> wrote:

> >>The rest of the money would be needed to digitise the recordings and put
> >>them online. I 'll be glad to provide guidance on this, once we get this
> >>far...

> >http://www.elpj.com/
> >A few of those and a lot of time and hard disk space ...

> The TEAC GF-350 may not be as professional, but it's a lot cheaper.

I have 440kg of vinyl records and no turntable. OH MY GOD I WANT A
LASER TURNTABLE.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Protected Wiki Comments

body:
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:11:02PM +0100, Sherool wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:46:21 +0100, Noah Spurrier <noah at noah.org> wrote:
> > I'm using MediaWiki as a CMS, so I don't allow public article editing,
> > but I do want to allow anonymous public comments.
> > Is it easy to have the discussion appear below the
> > main article instead of on a separate Discussion tab?
> > I'd like it to work somewhat in the style of PHP's online docs.
>
> If all you want is to have the talk page content appear below the main
> artile all you have to do is transclude it. That is, if your article is
> titled Foo just add {{Talk:Foo}} at the bottom of it.

And if you want it to *always* work like that, I think you can glue it
into the skin, so that it always comes up.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


list: wikien-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anyone want to summarise wikien-l weekly?

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>
> Improv started doing this for foundation-l and wikipedia-l. Think
> something analogous to "Kernel Traffic" for Linux. Anyone want to do
> wikien-l weekly?
>

Would you like a summary of all the spam we reject with that? :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061106/741e79ae/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] anyone heard back from Jimbo Re: 100M?

body:
Steve wrote:
> Liberatory 100M.

A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).

Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.

This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Changes to accesskeys and tooltips

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Forwarding here given en: users' fondness for js extensions.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com>
> Date: 31-Oct-2006 04:48
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Changes to accesskeys and tooltips
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Pretty soon, likely within the next week, I'll be moving all
> accesskeys and tooltips out of Monobook.js and implement them
> server-side.

Why?????

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061106/57a80c10/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Arbitration Committee Policy?

body:
On 06/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> While there may be a need for an arbitration committee for meta, the
> en:wp committee should not be viewed as automatically having authority
> on meta.

Well, no. The AC on en:wp is for en:wp. I thought the dispute
resolution procedure on meta was more the stewards going "hell no"
from time to time.

- d.


from_name: Sherool

subject: [Wikitech-l] Protected Wiki Comments

body:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:46:21 +0100, Noah Spurrier <noah at noah.org> wrote:

>
> I'm using MediaWiki as a CMS, so I don't allow public article editing,
> but I do want to allow anonymous public comments.
> Is it easy to have the discussion appear below the
> main article instead of on a separate Discussion tab?
> I'd like it to work somewhat in the style of PHP's online docs.

If all you want is to have the talk page content appear below the main
artile all you have to do is transclude it. That is, if your article is
titled Foo just add {{Talk:Foo}} at the bottom of it.

--
[[:en:User:Sherool]]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little

body:
On 06/11/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:

> I had not seen that such a thing existed before - I had only heard of
> it being theoretical years ago.  HOW AWESOME!

I wrote [[Laser turntable]] a coupla years ago :-) They're favoured by
record libraries and people with too many records. Stevie Wonder has
one, of course.

- d.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: Lookup directory wiki

body:
> Wayyyyyyyyy outside Wikimedia's goals and functional
>area.

I don't think so. How is Wikinews "educational"? It's about information, is
it not?

> 'Wikistalk' for short.

Thank you to whoever pointed out I'd missed a section on "Privacy"! Of
course, the wiki does not intend to be a "Wikistalk" - merely a collection
of information that would be publicly viewable anyway. See the brand new:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki#Privacy

By your reasoning, the Yellow Pages should be called the Stalker Pages.
Lookup directories are not about stalking. They're useful.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Domains

body:
Damian Finol wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A small report on this too:
>
> Wikipedia.org.ve has been registered by a squatter, is not for sale yet
> but is not being used either (DNS is wrong)
>
> Wikimedia.org.ve has been registered by me and is currently being used
> to setup the Venezuelan Chapter, like I've said in previous posts if the
> chapter doesn't go through, we'll happily cede/donate the domain to the
> foundation.
>
> The good thing about the Venezuelan NIC is that you have to be
> physically in Venezuela to register a domain (It requires a deposit in a
> Bank that's only in Venezuela).
>
> If there are other .ve domains that we should secure, please let me know
>   through email.
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Finol.

added as well :-)

Ey Damian. Nobody amongst you motivated to get involved in Wikimania
program ?

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Domains


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 06/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>While there may be a need for an arbitration committee for meta, the
>>en:wp committee should not be viewed as automatically having authority
>>on meta.
>
>
>
> Well, no. The AC on en:wp is for en:wp. I thought the dispute
> resolution procedure on meta was more the stewards going "hell no"
> from time to time.
>
>
> - d.

yes !
and overall, that seems to work :-)

... is not there a more and more noisy rumor of people wanting a new
steward election by the way ? ...

Ant (stepping deep in it, and tip toe-ing away silently)


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

body:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee

Is this policy for all Wikipedias or only for English one?

I think, where is an English project bias here, example in "Requests"
section (not all local committes have so many members as English
Arbitration).

--
Alexander Sigachov


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline Hitlist

body:
Speedy deletion criterion A7, which states:
"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article
about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web
content that does not assert the importance or significance of its
subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous
AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. Note: Avoid the
word "vanity" in deletion summaries since it may be insulting."

I've just removed the tag from articles about a Hollyoaks actress, a
Compuserve Vice President and a band broadcast on the BBC.  Someone beat
me to the line in removing a tag from an article on a bloke who had
written number one singles. I'm staggered at what some people think is
not an assertion of importance or significance.  The criterion has to
go.  It was proposed as "An article about a real person that does not
assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college
professors or actors may be individually important in society; people
such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of
being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial,
it should be taken to VFD instead."  which at least gave some examples,
but they quickly fell out.  Most of us who opposed this felt it would
prove to be ambiguous, but the majority had their head.  If our CSD
truly are supposed to be limited, this has to be bashed with stick.
Repeatedly.  Ah well, rant over.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.29/520 - Release Date: 06/11/06


body:
Simetrical wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> Forwarding here given en: users' fondness for js extensions.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 31-Oct-2006 04:48
>>> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Changes to accesskeys and tooltips
>>> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty soon, likely within the next week, I'll be moving all
>>> accesskeys and tooltips out of Monobook.js and implement them
>>> server-side.
>> Why?????
>
> Because putting them in JS is bad for accessibility.  Cell phones, for
> instance, will often as not have no JS support, or have JS off for
> default.  Other non-conventional browsers may or may not apply the JS
> correctly.  You'll still be able to modify all the tooltips and
> accesskeys via JavaScript, just using slightly different calls (i.e.,
> getting the element by ID instead of modifying the ta array).
>

Ok.

> Now that you mention it, though, to ease the shock it seems like a
> good idea to apply stuff from the ta array anyway, if it exists, so
> that old JS modifications still work.  I'll be sure to implement that,
> so you don't have to worry about *that* breaking your scripts,
> although do consider that array deprecated.  This is more like a few
> weeks off, though, and that from now; I was a bit optimistic with my
> estimate.
>

Just so long as it's documented :)

> I assume you missed my announcement about revamping all the id's.  :)
> Don't worry, that *will* get properly announced to all the right
> places (not just wikitech-l, also various other significant lists and
> hopefully all the sites' JS/CSS pages), with the full list of changes
> and at least a week in advance, but the lack of standardization in
> those can cause odd bugs--i.e., conflicts with users' id's, classes,
> and headings.  There's no point in letting these scripts accumulate
> indefinitely based on flawed id's.
>

Ah good. What's the proposed naming schema?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061107/4c9b6c06/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 07/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> The page is, at present, a copy-paste of [[en:Wikipedia:Arbitration
> Committee]]. It came into existence because people were asking "what is
> this arbcom thing", it being mentioned in describing several high-level
> privileges (CheckUser, Oversight). Feel free to rewrite it...

Definitely needs customisation and rewriting for Meta!

- d.


from_name: Liz Kim

subject: [Wikitech-l] Directory structure URL? /a/b/c?

body:
Hello,
It seems like the structure becomes very flat with MediaWiki.
All pages are under URL/PAGENAME..
Is there a way to create /URL/DIRECTORY/SUBDIRECTORY/PAGE?
Or do multiple Mediawikis need to be created?
Thanks!


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 06/11/06, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 'Wikistalk' for short.
>
> Thank you to whoever pointed out I'd missed a section on "Privacy"! Of
> course, the wiki does not intend to be a "Wikistalk" - merely a collection
> of information that would be publicly viewable anyway. See the brand new:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki#Privacy
>
> By your reasoning, the Yellow Pages should be called the Stalker Pages.

This is a major problem of the internet age. Lots and lots of
disparate collections of innocuous and useful information can be
pulled together, again entirely publicly, and have unforseen
cumulative effects. Before, if you wanted to track down information on
someone, it might have taken days or weeks of patient digging, social
engineering, this and that and the next thing. Now? One hour, maybe
fifteen or twenty dollars, and you have a name and an address and a
telephone number and a photo or three, maybe an email address or a
blog, &c &c.

Yes, the source data is all public, but the synthesis of that data is
new and - in many cases - the whole is far greater than the sum of its
parts. We're taking material from "public sources", which can be
anything from the phone book to directory entries... but it can also
encompass the websites which have a particular passion for "outing"
various groups of people, or the sex-offender registry, or court
documents, or...

Whether the collation of this information is "good" or "bad"
essentially depends on the motives of the user, and we have no way of
measuring that - you can usually spot a hatchetjob in an encyclopedia
article, but the end result on a site like this is indistinguishable
from a normal page!

Given the number of complaints we recieve about material like this on
en.wp, which *doesn't* encourage original synthesis or the publishing
of private information, I'm really not confident this project won't
just be a massive liability to us...

Yes, we can make people ex-directory. Yes, we can take them out if
they complain. But that's a reactive method - it relies on them
noticing and complaining, and by then the damage is done.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Changes to accesskeys and tooltips

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> Pretty soon, likely within the next week, I'll be moving all
> accesskeys and tooltips out of Monobook.js and implement them
> server-side.

Speaking of accesskeys, is there a complete list of them somewhere?
Seems like an obvious gap in the documentation (couldn't find anything
on meta or on mediawiki.org).


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I think this is a big misconception, though an understandable one.
> Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of limitless depth. Due to that,
> it covers material that would be too esoteric for a paper general
> collection. But it's approach to all of its topics is that of a
> general encyclopedia. So even when we have an article on, say,
> Vermont State Highway 26, the approach is that of a general
> encyclopedia, not a specialist one. This is a VITAL distinction in
> terms of understanding what the content of an article should be.

Well, yeah, all of the articles are subject to the same policies,
guidelines, style guides, etc.. It's actually one of my major annoyances
when subgroups of articles try to come up with their own special
standards to live by. When I talk of "compendium of specialist
encyclopedias" I'm thinking just of what subjects actually get articles,
not the form those articles take.

> WikiProjects, on the other hand, are social phenomena among editors
> who want to work on particular areas - equivalent, say, to those
> editors of an encyclopedia assigned to manage the physical sciences.

But the end result of those associations are that those particular areas
of knowledge often wind up with uniform and tightly integrated coverage,
with elaborate category structures and templates binding them together.
You could take many of those subject groupings out of Wikipedia and have
them stand alone as an "Encyclopedia of Pokemon" or whatever with only
modest modifications.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061107/421af5d6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sebastian Moleski

body:
Hi,

I would also like to point out that US data protection laws (which the
proposal refers to) are notoriously weak and fragmented. They are also
insufficient in many cases where subjects might be protected by more
stringent privacy laws such as in the European Union. The legal
ramifications and potential for litigation IMO more than outweigh the
benefit of such a project.

Regards,

Sebastian

P.S. To the presenter: please understand that the mere fact that information
is available publically does not necessarily give you permission to
aggregate it other than perhaps for statistical analysis where the data is
sufficiently anonymized and cannot be tracked back to individual people.


from_name: Peter Ansell

body:
On 07/11/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Speedy deletion criterion A7, which states:
> "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article
> about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web
> content that does not assert the importance or significance of its
> subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous
> AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. Note: Avoid the
> word "vanity" in deletion summaries since it may be insulting."
>
> I've just removed the tag from articles about a Hollyoaks actress, a
> Compuserve Vice President and a band broadcast on the BBC.  Someone beat
> me to the line in removing a tag from an article on a bloke who had
> written number one singles. I'm staggered at what some people think is
> not an assertion of importance or significance.  The criterion has to
> go.  It was proposed as "An article about a real person that does not
> assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college
> professors or actors may be individually important in society; people
> such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of
> being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial,
> it should be taken to VFD instead."  which at least gave some examples,
> but they quickly fell out.  Most of us who opposed this felt it would
> prove to be ambiguous, but the majority had their head.  If our CSD
> truly are supposed to be limited, this has to be bashed with stick.
> Repeatedly.  Ah well, rant over.
>
> Steve block
>

I totally agree, it is feature creep---and unnecessary at that---to
claim that some assertions are too dubious to be worth a discussion.

Peter Ansell


from_name: sigmaman

body:
I am crossing my fingers that this comes to pass.

In the meantime, if we want to look at guerilla ways to fund raise, maybe we
can take a page out of Creative Commons' playbook and use Revver. Create a
few short videos about the Wikipedia cause, Revverize them, and shoot them
into the webosphere. We could place links to the videos on Wikipedia.

Any thoughts?

Mitch

On 11/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> > Liberatory 100M.
>
> A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
> further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
> but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
> content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
> imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
> another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
> sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
>
> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>
> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Steve

body:
I'm more interested in watching the development of ideas. A handful have
come across this list and there are a slew @ Wikimedia (most of them rapid
fire wishes). Is Wikimedia (or somewhere else) still chattering? Link?

-S

On 11/7/06, sigmaman <sigmaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am crossing my fingers that this comes to pass.
>
> In the meantime, if we want to look at guerilla ways to fund raise, maybe
> we
> can take a page out of Creative Commons' playbook and use Revver. Create a
> few short videos about the Wikipedia cause, Revverize them, and shoot them
> into the webosphere. We could place links to the videos on Wikipedia.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Mitch
>
>
> On 11/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> > > Liberatory 100M.
> >
> > A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
> > further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
> > but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
> > content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
> > imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
> > another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
> > sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
> >
> > Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> > idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
> >
> > This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
> >
> > --Jimbo
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Domains

references:
<20061106120924.478DC19BFA4@albert.pmtpa.wmnet>	<einb03$oo0$1@sea.gmane.org>	<454F8921.2000005@igluve.org>	<eioghn$bcr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<454FE2BB.30103@igluve.org>

body:
Damian Finol wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>Damian Finol wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>A small report on this too:
>>>
>>>Wikipedia.org.ve has been registered by a squatter, is not for sale yet
>>>but is not being used either (DNS is wrong)
>>>
>>>Wikimedia.org.ve has been registered by me and is currently being used
>>>to setup the Venezuelan Chapter, like I've said in previous posts if the
>>>chapter doesn't go through, we'll happily cede/donate the domain to the
>>>foundation.
>>>
>>>The good thing about the Venezuelan NIC is that you have to be
>>>physically in Venezuela to register a domain (It requires a deposit in a
>>>Bank that's only in Venezuela).
>>>
>>>If there are other .ve domains that we should secure, please let me know
>>>  through email.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Damian Finol.
>>
>>added as well :-)
>>
>>Ey Damian. Nobody amongst you motivated to get involved in Wikimania
>>program ?
>>
>>Ant
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> Hey Ant,
>
> I already volunteered to work on Wikimania 2008 :), I had a chat with
> Theodoranian and told him I was more than available to participate and
> do whatever it is they need me to do, I'm also in the wikimania-l mail
> list :). I'll see if any of the other guys in Venezuela is interested,
> but is not going to be easy to raise money to go there (not to mention
> getting Visas). I'm already saving up money and now I have a grand total
> of 105$! out of 2400$ in Air fare :).
>
> Anyways, if there's anything else I can do, either for the Foundation or
>     to Wikimania, I'm available (I defend Thesis on Nov 20, so after
> that I'm pretty much done with university yay! :) ).
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Finol
> Maracaibo, Venezuela.

Cool.

And what was your field of studies ?
And what do you like doing ?
(what are you really bad at doing as well)
Any specific wish ?

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Domains


subject:
[Foundation-l] Good news everyone (tax, servers,
	amsterdam and wikimedia germany)

body:
On 02/11/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland is happy to announce that the German tax office
> just confirmed the Verein's tax-exempt status. We now have the
> continuing ability to issue donation receipts until October 2011.

Oh, hurrah!

As an aside, I've just had a quick poke on Meta and couldn't see...
are any other local chapters tax-exempt/charitable? I know WMUK is
attempting to become so, but I don't know the status anywhere else.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
On 07/11/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> Speaking of accesskeys, is there a complete list of them somewhere?
> Seems like an obvious gap in the documentation (couldn't find anything
> on meta or on mediawiki.org).

You may have noticed that MediaWiki's documentation mostly consists of gaps ;-)

Has anyone made a list of holes in MW doc? (Not that I'm volunteering.)

- d.


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>
> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)

You mean, for people to start mulling over the idea of slapping banner
ads on Wikipedia?

I would expect a major, major disaster. Probably a huge fork. And
unlike the one or two forks I've threatened in the past, this one
would probably _not_ be initiated by myself, given the fact that I'm
not extremely active anymore (I'm doing more work on reconsidering
definitions for urbandictionary -- it's much clearer when something is
crap there than it is on Wikipedia because they have clear guidelines
and you can delete stuff or keep it without having to worry about
improving existing content, though I do regret their lack of
non-English versions and believe they would benefit from a more
wiki-like structure).

But yeah, do we not remember Enciclopedia Libre? That happened just
because people were thinking about maybe possibly sometime in the
future eventually having banner ads, IIRC. To actually implement
them... wow... yeah.

But if it's a sacrifice you ("we") are willing to make in the name of
the almighty dollar (even if you're going to use it for good rather
than evil), well then, whatever floats your ("our") boat.

Mark

On 06/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Liberatory 100M.
>
> A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
> further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
> but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
> content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
> imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
> another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
> sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
>
> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>
> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: florencedevouard

subject: [Foundation-l] [Advisory board]: appeal for members suggestion

body:
A few months ago, the board of the Foundation passed a resolution
regarding the creation of an advisory board.

You will find the copy of this resolution at the end of this message for
your information.

Time has come to populate this advisory board.

This has been discussed a few times already on this list, but now, what
we would like from you is to be more specific. We welcome your input on
who should be approached to be added to the advisory board. Please be
*realistic*.

If you have a name to suggest, please
* Send it by email at my address (fdevouard #AT# wikimedia.org), and
keep the subject line (for email sorting purpose)
* Mention the name of the person
* If possible, add a couple of links to this person biography (for
famous people, Wikipedia will do :-), for less famous, Wikipedia might
do as well..., for others, blogs, personal websites, user page...)
* shortly (few short sentences at most), the reason why you think this
person would bring to the organisation (try to be specific)
* the cream of cream would be to add a contact (email for example)

I'll report these suggestions on the board wiki, and these will be
discussed during our next (irl) board meeting end of november.

Thanks in advance

Florence

--------------

THE litterature

Whereas the board considers that an advisory group could be a tremendous
complement to the effectiveness of the official board of directors,
committee and staff

It is hereby resolved that: the board of directors agree to create an
advisory board to serve as a valuable complement to the staff and the
board of directors. The advisory board is a group of individuals,
appointed by the board of directors for the purpose of offering advice
and support on a wide range of issues relevant to Wikimedia Foundation.
These issues are likely to include areas such as partnerships, public
relations, financing, technology, administration, international matters
and more.

Appointments: Appointment should be done with a majority of support from
members of the board of trustees. Appointments should be planned to
implement a well-balanced advisory board that should be used effectively
to bring a number of important benefits, among them: Contacts,
Expertise, Perspective, Prestige, Strategic Input, Financial Investment.

Duties of the Advisory Board: The advisory board will not generally get
involved in issues that involve the administration of the non-profit
organisation and should, as a rule leave such matters to the board
(governing board). However, it will up to the board and the advisor, to
agree the range and extent of duties to be performed by the advisor.
Every advisory board member should have a charter of what they?re
expected to bring to the organisation.

Compensation: Advisory board members will not be financially compensated
for their activity.

Length of Service: Advisors will be appointed by the board of Trustees
for one year, renewal being possible.


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 11/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > How much does Wikimedia currently have in cash?
> > >
> > > How much does the Foundation need for the next 6 months?
> >
> > I've been told that audited financial data and some indication of need
> (not necessarily an
> > official budget) will be available before the start of the drive.
> >
> > -- mav
> >
> I certainly hope so.  I've never heard of an audit taking nearly 7
> months to complete when nothing criminal was going on.
>

I don't have any inside insight into what's going on at WMF, however...

Audit by itself no; audit plus putting into place a new, professional,
properly managed financial management operations system (software,
procedures, databases, etc), and merging the old data into the new system?

Sure.  That takes more than 6 months all the time.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Gregory Kohs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration nominee statement censored

body:
I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements&diff=86306336&oldid=86305792

When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might
post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive
response was:

"I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell.
None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's
trying to make money off of it."

Is it the policy of Wikipedia, or just the bad behavior of over-presumptuous
editors, to delete the nomination of someone for a position of authority,
just because their account has been blocked, or certain key people disagree
with their philosophy?  It's not such a far stretch to see how I might
imagine YankSox and Cyde Weys operating from a position of fear, because
they have self-doubt about the legitimacy of their own philosophy and
entitlement to authority.  Don't put it to a community vote, because --
gasp! -- what if some in the community take the "wrong" position?!

My realistic expectation is not to "win" the ArbCom election, but I still
feel that it's important to gauge community support of my position,
regardless.  Will the vote be 10-to-1 against?  Maybe 20-to-1?  Or,
possibly, only 2-to-1?  If the latter, might it be worth some additional
consideration of the point?

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
????????? ??????? wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee
>
> Is this policy for all Wikipedias or only for English one?
>
> I think, where is an English project bias here, example in "Requests"
> section (not all local committes have so many members as English
> Arbitration).
>

The page is, at present, a copy-paste of [[en:Wikipedia:Arbitration
Committee]]. It came into existence because people were asking "what is
this arbcom thing", it being mentioned in describing several high-level
privileges (CheckUser, Oversight). Feel free to rewrite it...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061107/71ab0896/attachment.pgp


from_name: Dan Collins

body:
an Aunt Sally? never heard that before

On 11/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > You were really that determined to put yourself up as an Aunt Sally?
> > Man, that is weird!
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
>
> Nah fairly common see last. But since the user has no accounts with
> over 1000 edits they can't run. End of story.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


body:
Geni is taking a "personally interpretive" look at the actual "rule":

>>> In order to run you will need to have 1000 edits on en.wikipedia.

I asked Geni by private e-mail: "I don't see how you're reading the
words 'only one account counts' in the above statement.  I only see
the word 'you', which doesn't mention accounts, but does imply talking
about a person, which I am one."

Geni replied with the usual humorous wit:

"Reading?  I wrote it."

Geni might want to look at [[WP:OWN]], and also explain to us why she
wrote the rule with the word "you", when she apparently intended that
it apply to "a single user account".  This seems to be yet another
case of "rule creep" to try to address single, uncomfortable
situations that sometimes arise.  Just what I was talking about.

Guy, I'll be the Aunt Sally, if you want to throw sticks at a man
who's tied down.

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


body:
tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr!

please reread my message. we have experience with this in the past
(Enciclopedia Libre), and it was  moderately successful. as i noted
before, there is going to be such a thing if banner ads are added, and
it is _not_ my personal threat -- i guarantee you, somebody else will
make it.

Mark

On 07/11/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Successfully forking Wikipedia. Let us consider; to be successful, you
> want to retain the international aspects of Wikipedia. This disqualifies
> Citizendium immediately as a success. You will want people to edit all
> these projects. You want to take the mantle of Wikipedia and therefore
> you will need to get programmers to outdo what Wikipedia will be able to
> do with all this extra cash. Last but not least you want to take all the
> traffic from Wikipedia so you need sufficient servers and bandwidth.
>
> So suppose you make good on your threat and fork. What does it take to
> succeed? Hard work, persuasion and money.
>
> Now I am sure you are as much aware as I am that there are many ways
> that we can make money if we want to. It is also almost certain that we
> can get a lot of money, probably sufficient, for quit some time to go
> without adverts. When there is no option we can even opt to have
> voluntary adds, where "die hards" like you can opt out of having adds
> for the time that it takes to get the advertisement money needed to keep
> going.
>
> Then again there are organisations quite happy to support the Wikimedia
> Foundation to continue doing what is does so well. There are
> organisations like Kennisnet that have helped us a lot. There are many
> more such organisations that would help out if asked in the right way
> for them. The question would be, is this advertisement, partnering or
> cooperation? Would we be willing to say and would we be able to say
> thank you?
>
> Many organisations have big amounts of what is currently proprietary
> content, when we find it in ourselves to work together with
> organisations we could get much of this content opened up, freed for all
> to use. Sometimes what is required are small changes to our practices,
> for instance what would happen if we always attribute pictures of art
> that is in the public domain to the organisation that has it in it's
> collection ?? It would be informative and people would know what museum
> to go to see some magnificent art. You know what, this would cost us
> nothing and don't you think this would work for many, many museums?
>
> When you are able to figure out what functionality we need, you may find
> that there are subsidies, grants available just for those needs. We
> could work together with students and scientists that do this as their
> research. We could propose the functionality for the educational value
> that we would provide. One of the requirements of many of these grants
> is that we do this in a sustainable way. Guess what, sustaining itself
> on a shoestring is what the Wikimedia Foundation has proven to be good
> at. But for sustaining what we have, we have yet another reason to ask
> for a grant, subsidy or donation.
>
> The upshot; we do not need a fork to do well. What we need is to do more
> of what we do well. What we need is staying personable and become more
> collaborative. We can do it, we just need to be convinced that we can
> and that we should.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> >> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> >> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
> >>
> >
> > You mean, for people to start mulling over the idea of slapping banner
> > ads on Wikipedia?
> >
> > I would expect a major, major disaster. Probably a huge fork. And
> > unlike the one or two forks I've threatened in the past, this one
> > would probably _not_ be initiated by myself, given the fact that I'm
> > not extremely active anymore (I'm doing more work on reconsidering
> > definitions for urbandictionary -- it's much clearer when something is
> > crap there than it is on Wikipedia because they have clear guidelines
> > and you can delete stuff or keep it without having to worry about
> > improving existing content, though I do regret their lack of
> > non-English versions and believe they would benefit from a more
> > wiki-like structure).
> >
> > But yeah, do we not remember Enciclopedia Libre? That happened just
> > because people were thinking about maybe possibly sometime in the
> > future eventually having banner ads, IIRC. To actually implement
> > them... wow... yeah.
> >
> > But if it's a sacrifice you ("we") are willing to make in the name of
> > the almighty dollar (even if you're going to use it for good rather
> > than evil), well then, whatever floats your ("our") boat.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 06/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>
> >>> Liberatory 100M.
> >>>
> >> A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
> >> further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
> >> but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
> >> content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
> >> imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
> >> another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
> >> sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
> >>
> >> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> >> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
> >>
> >> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
Commons is going to hit 1M files soon!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

I can't remember when the last fundraiser was, but maybe it was
actually before enwp hit 1M as well?

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


body:
and now this is getting crazy. It is accepted, if not written down, that
using another account or editing anonymously while banned is ban evasion,
and can get you banned. Second, I believe that editcounts are by account not
user for these purposes. True, in a RfA people will take anons and other
accounts into account, but here with a cut-and-dry cutoff I think it should
not be counted. I read once that many admins have non-admin accounts for
editing freely. That account doesn't get the adminship(even if they want it
to - see TawkerbotTorA or whatever), so why should you get edits from a
blocked account?
--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 5/25/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I asked Michael if we could get a financial report to evaluate the
> situation. Financial statements for the year are roughly done, but for a
> part about Wikimania still not fixed. I suppose Mav should soon give us
> more feedback I expect. We have approximately 530 000 dollars in cash,
> which is roughly what it was at the end of February.

> In a message dated 11/6/2006 10:58:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> messedrocker at gmail.com writes:
>
> WMF has  around $500k in its bank account last I heard, though they're going
> to be  spending AT LEAST that on servers. Keep in mind nothing I say  is
> official.

On 11/6/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> WMF has nowhere close to $500k in its bank account(s).
>

Yes, that financial data is desperately needed, audited or not.  It's
hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't have
any idea what you have or how much you need.

Anthony

(*) where "good" means more than just "successful"


body:
On 11/6/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > How much does Wikimedia currently have in cash?
> >
> > How much does the Foundation need for the next 6 months?
>
> I've been told that audited financial data and some indication of need (not necessarily an
> official budget) will be available before the start of the drive.
>
> -- mav
>
I certainly hope so.  I've never heard of an audit taking nearly 7
months to complete when nothing criminal was going on.

Anthony


from_name: James Hare

body:
The book-keeping must have been that awful, I guess.

On 11/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > How much does Wikimedia currently have in cash?
> > >
> > > How much does the Foundation need for the next 6 months?
> >
> > I've been told that audited financial data and some indication of need
> (not necessarily an
> > official budget) will be available before the start of the drive.
> >
> > -- mav
> >
> I certainly hope so.  I've never heard of an audit taking nearly 7
> months to complete when nothing criminal was going on.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Jim

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] New License was anyone heard back from Jimbo Re:
	100M?

body:
On 11/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
> > Liberatory 100M.
>
> A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
> further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
> but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
> content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
> imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
> another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
> sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).

One way to sustain regain such an investment would be to provide a new kind
of hybrid license. I have been mullying over this for some time because of
some conversations with people who have an image library and sell individual
pictures for use on websites or as hard copies. One indicated an interest in
donating some images to commons but when I explained that any images they
donate could be downloaded from Wikipedia and redistributed at will (with
only attribution as a requirement) they decided not to pursue further
discussions.

Therefore it would be useful to have a license that would be acceptable on
commons that had the following characteristics:
1) Work remains copyrighted and is licensed for use
2) Work can be used by Wikipedia without limitation on any pages of a
Wikimedia Foundation project
3) Work can be freely used by anyone who redistributes content from
Wikipedia as long as:
    a) the work is attributed to the source; and
    b) the work is small part of a the total redistribution of Wikipedia
content
4) The Work can not be individual redistributed without consent, nor can it
be sold as an individual unit in electronic print or other format.

I think this would create a situation where an owner of vast amounts of
content could provide Wikipedia with decent resolution images (like (1-2MB),
and still be protected from someone using commons to harvest images and
resell them elsewhere without getting a proper license.

Additionally, this creates no undue burden on any of the users of WMF
content like WikiJunior books, sites that mirror WMF projects, or sites that
use some subset of WMF content, because they can use the works in question.

Those that are looking to redistribute specific content would have to get
permission, but if there is value in selling or redistributing a single
work; then there will be enough value in forging a license agreement with
the author.

Of course details would have to be worked out like what to do if someone
uploads a bunch of images of "dinosaurs" that are used on almost every page
of the WikiJunior Dinosaur project, and how would that be different than
someone who created a compilation of all the dinosaur images and sold them
as a group rather than individually and without wikipedia articles, etc.

I think this type of license would do very little to detract from our
mission; and it would allay the fears of professionals that an image they
took could be widely used without them getting the proper compensation for
their professional endeavor (image a photographer who photographed a
"historic moment" uploaded it; and then it was splashed on the front page of
every major newspaper without any compensation).

This would also allow a archivist organization to provide works to Commons
without worrying that they are devaluing the images that they sell to the
public; or failing to meet the obligations imposed upon them by the
endowments by not meeting their fiduciary duty to protect the assets that
have been entrusted to them.

Thus providing a means for someone who wants to license and partially
"liberate" content in a way to create a sustainable business model since
they could sell the individual uses of the content.

Thoughts?
--Tr?del

> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>
> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
>
> --Jimbo


from_name: Michael Davis

body:
The audit includes Wikimedia's 2005/6 fiscal year which ended on June
30, 2006.  It is hard to complete an audit for a year until after the
end of that year.

Michael

James Hare wrote:
> The book-keeping must have been that awful, I guess.
>
> On 11/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --- Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How much does Wikimedia currently have in cash?
>>>>
>>>> How much does the Foundation need for the next 6 months?
>>>>
>>> I've been told that audited financial data and some indication of need
>>>
>> (not necessarily an
>>
>>> official budget) will be available before the start of the drive.
>>>
>>> -- mav
>>>
>>>
>> I certainly hope so.  I've never heard of an audit taking nearly 7
>> months to complete when nothing criminal was going on.
>>
>> Anthony
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 11/7/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Simetrical wrote:
> > Pretty soon, likely within the next week, I'll be moving all
> > accesskeys and tooltips out of Monobook.js and implement them
> > server-side.
>
> Speaking of accesskeys, is there a complete list of them somewhere?
> Seems like an obvious gap in the documentation (couldn't find anything
> on meta or on mediawiki.org).

They vary by language, in theory.  Mostly they're all the same
cross-language.  Some are their own system messages, starting with
"accesskey-", and can be looked up as such.  The remainder are in
Monobook.js.  All appear in tooltips, I think, so you can see if a
given element has an accesskey when hovering over it.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 07/11/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems like the structure becomes very flat with MediaWiki.
> All pages are under URL/PAGENAME..
> Is there a way to create /URL/DIRECTORY/SUBDIRECTORY/PAGE?

Yeah, just create the page with a slash in the name. You can see the
effect on, e.g., RFC or AFD pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kerru_Dera

Notice there's a link to the level up.

- d.


body:
On 11/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems like the structure becomes very flat with MediaWiki.
> > All pages are under URL/PAGENAME..
> > Is there a way to create /URL/DIRECTORY/SUBDIRECTORY/PAGE?
>
>
> Yeah, just create the page with a slash in the name. You can see the
> effect on, e.g., RFC or AFD pages:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kerru_Dera
>
> Notice there's a link to the level up.

You may have to enable subpages for the namespace in question,
however, before this will work (Google "MediaWiki subpage" to get
instructions).


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
I would also add that the audit covers the entire span of financial
history of WMF since inception, so three years worth of data.  Also,
this is the first audit of the organization.

On 11/7/06, Michael Davis <mdavis at wikia.com> wrote:
> The audit includes Wikimedia's 2005/6 fiscal year which ended on June
> 30, 2006.  It is hard to complete an audit for a year until after the
> end of that year.
>
> Michael
>
> James Hare wrote:
> > The book-keeping must have been that awful, I guess.
> >
> > On 11/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/6/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How much does Wikimedia currently have in cash?
> >>>>
> >>>> How much does the Foundation need for the next 6 months?
> >>>>
> >>> I've been told that audited financial data and some indication of need
> >>>
> >> (not necessarily an
> >>
> >>> official budget) will be available before the start of the drive.
> >>>
> >>> -- mav
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I certainly hope so.  I've never heard of an audit taking nearly 7
> >> months to complete when nothing criminal was going on.
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


body:
On 11/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
> <snip>
> > It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> > have any idea what you have or how much you need.
> >
>
> "Um, we need some money. For stuff."

"We have to make it go."

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/7/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
> self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements&diff=86306336&oldid=86305792
>
>

Fewer than 1000 edits. You can't run.

--
geni


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:05:16 -0500, "Gregory Kohs"
<thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
>self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:

You were really that determined to put yourself up as an Aunt Sally?
Man, that is weird!

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 11/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> You were really that determined to put yourself up as an Aunt Sally?
> Man, that is weird!
>
> Guy (JzG)

Nah fairly common see last. But since the user has no accounts with
over 1000 edits they can't run. End of story.

--
geni


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
George Herbert wrote:

>On 11/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
>>>have any idea what you have or how much you need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>"Um, we need some money. For stuff."
>>
>>
>
>
>
>"We have to make it go."
>
>
>
>
"investing in the future of eKnowledge"

J


body:
On 11/7/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> Geni is taking a "personally interpretive" look at the actual "rule":
>
> >>> In order to run you will need to have 1000 edits on en.wikipedia.
>
> I asked Geni by private e-mail: "I don't see how you're reading the
> words 'only one account counts' in the above statement.  I only see
> the word 'you', which doesn't mention accounts, but does imply talking
> about a person, which I am one."
>
> Geni replied with the usual humorous wit:
>
> "Reading?  I wrote it."
>
> Geni might want to look at [[WP:OWN]], and also explain to us why she
> wrote the rule with the word "you", when she apparently intended that
> it apply to "a single user account".

Because they were thrown together rather losely to allow further debate.

> This seems to be yet another
> case of "rule creep" to try to address single, uncomfortable
> situations that sometimes arise.  Just what I was talking about.
>

I fail to see how haveing you run would be an "uncomfortable
situation". Pointless extra work yes but that is a normal part of the
election. No I just don't want to have to deal with dozens of accounts
that suddenly disscover they have socks with extra edits.

> Guy, I'll be the Aunt Sally, if you want to throw sticks at a man
> who's tied down.

Please when the community lynches people they tie (or clasicaly I
belive the word is string) them up.
--
geni


body:
"If you don't donate, you support proprietary knowledge and are evil."

On 11/7/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
>
> >On 11/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Anthony wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>
> >>>It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> >>>have any idea what you have or how much you need.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>"Um, we need some money. For stuff."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >"We have to make it go."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> "investing in the future of eKnowledge"
>
> J
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
We have, so far, twenty announced candidates for next month's
Arbitration Committee election. To the best of my knowledge, none of
them is female.

In previous elections, we also had very few female candidates, yet one
of them finished either first or second in each of the last two
elections. I'm sure we have some female contributors who would be
well-qualified and bring a valuable perspective to the arbitration
process, and I would encourage them to consider running.

--Michael Snow


body:
Timwi wrote:
> Simetrical wrote:
>> Pretty soon, likely within the next week, I'll be moving all
>> accesskeys and tooltips out of Monobook.js and implement them
>> server-side.
>
> Speaking of accesskeys, is there a complete list of them somewhere?
> Seems like an obvious gap in the documentation (couldn't find anything
> on meta or on mediawiki.org).
>

Under the current ta array system, you can generate a list using
JavaScript...

var list="";
for(var id in ta)
{
  list = list + id + ": (" + ta[id][0] + ", " + ta[id][1] + ")\n ";
}

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061107/72f3cfef/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
Successfully forking Wikipedia. Let us consider; to be successful, you
want to retain the international aspects of Wikipedia. This disqualifies
Citizendium immediately as a success. You will want people to edit all
these projects. You want to take the mantle of Wikipedia and therefore
you will need to get programmers to outdo what Wikipedia will be able to
do with all this extra cash. Last but not least you want to take all the
traffic from Wikipedia so you need sufficient servers and bandwidth.

So suppose you make good on your threat and fork. What does it take to
succeed? Hard work, persuasion and money.

Now I am sure you are as much aware as I am that there are many ways
that we can make money if we want to. It is also almost certain that we
can get a lot of money, probably sufficient, for quit some time to go
without adverts. When there is no option we can even opt to have
voluntary adds, where "die hards" like you can opt out of having adds
for the time that it takes to get the advertisement money needed to keep
going.

Then again there are organisations quite happy to support the Wikimedia
Foundation to continue doing what is does so well. There are
organisations like Kennisnet that have helped us a lot. There are many
more such organisations that would help out if asked in the right way
for them. The question would be, is this advertisement, partnering or
cooperation? Would we be willing to say and would we be able to say
thank you?

Many organisations have big amounts of what is currently proprietary
content, when we find it in ourselves to work together with
organisations we could get much of this content opened up, freed for all
to use. Sometimes what is required are small changes to our practices,
for instance what would happen if we always attribute pictures of art
that is in the public domain to the organisation that has it in it's
collection ?? It would be informative and people would know what museum
to go to see some magnificent art. You know what, this would cost us
nothing and don't you think this would work for many, many museums?

When you are able to figure out what functionality we need, you may find
that there are subsidies, grants available just for those needs. We
could work together with students and scientists that do this as their
research. We could propose the functionality for the educational value
that we would provide. One of the requirements of many of these grants
is that we do this in a sustainable way. Guess what, sustaining itself
on a shoestring is what the Wikimedia Foundation has proven to be good
at. But for sustaining what we have, we have yet another reason to ask
for a grant, subsidy or donation.

The upshot; we do not need a fork to do well. What we need is to do more
of what we do well. What we need is staying personable and become more
collaborative. We can do it, we just need to be convinced that we can
and that we should.

Thanks,
     GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:
>> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
>> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>>
>> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
>>
>
> You mean, for people to start mulling over the idea of slapping banner
> ads on Wikipedia?
>
> I would expect a major, major disaster. Probably a huge fork. And
> unlike the one or two forks I've threatened in the past, this one
> would probably _not_ be initiated by myself, given the fact that I'm
> not extremely active anymore (I'm doing more work on reconsidering
> definitions for urbandictionary -- it's much clearer when something is
> crap there than it is on Wikipedia because they have clear guidelines
> and you can delete stuff or keep it without having to worry about
> improving existing content, though I do regret their lack of
> non-English versions and believe they would benefit from a more
> wiki-like structure).
>
> But yeah, do we not remember Enciclopedia Libre? That happened just
> because people were thinking about maybe possibly sometime in the
> future eventually having banner ads, IIRC. To actually implement
> them... wow... yeah.
>
> But if it's a sacrifice you ("we") are willing to make in the name of
> the almighty dollar (even if you're going to use it for good rather
> than evil), well then, whatever floats your ("our") boat.
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> Liberatory 100M.
>>>
>> A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected.  There is no
>> further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
>> but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
>> content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia...  it is one thing to
>> imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
>> another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
>> sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
>>
>> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
>> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>>
>> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
>>
>> --Jimbo


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
> "Gregory Kohs" wrote
>
> > I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
> > self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_
statements&diff=86306336&oldid=86305792
> >
> >
> > When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so
that I might
> > post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather
preemptive
> > response was:
> >
> > "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in
hell.
> > None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's
> > trying to make money off of it."
>
> [[Screaming Lord Sutch]] would be proud of you. I didn't think that
sort of attitude exported.

In all honesty, at what point is he going to be reined in?  Seriously.

-Jeff
--

If you can see this, I'm not at home.


from_name: luke brandt

subject: [Foundation-l] Is there a Foundation preferred license?

body:
Hi, Does the Foundation have any preference for a particular open
content license, eg GFDL ? Or is it strictly neutral on this 'legality'
I just saw some thought seems to have been given to this question:-

[ Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

ARTICLE I: NAME ...

ARTICLE II: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The general purpose and objectives of the Foundation shall be the
following: Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and
maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of
quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information,
and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that
will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free
documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by
the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar
licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org. The goals of the
foundation are to encourage the further growth and development of open
content, social sofware WikiWiki-based projects ... ]


body:
On 08/11/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
> >On 11/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Anthony wrote:

> >>>It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> >>>have any idea what you have or how much you need.

> >>"Um, we need some money. For stuff."

> >"We have to make it go."

> "investing in the future of eKnowledge"

"If you can't give us your soul and sanity, you could always just give
us your money."

Downtime is our greatest revenue generator. Having a donation link on
the "whoops the servers are melting" page is a fantastic idea. When
asked in interviews about advertising on Wikipedia, I say that people
seem to prefer being annoyed by downtime to being annoyed by ads, but
we need money please kthx.

- d.


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

body:
"You know you want to."

That's a wiki-way to edit a pledge for teh moneys.

On 11/8/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> "If you don't donate, you support proprietary knowledge and are evil."
>
> On 11/7/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >
> > George Herbert wrote:
> >
> > >On 11/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Anthony wrote:
> > >><snip>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> > >>>have any idea what you have or how much you need.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>"Um, we need some money. For stuff."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"We have to make it go."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > "investing in the future of eKnowledge"
> >
> > J
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz Siedlecki


body:
Hoi,
The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some
of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be
chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The
GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was
designed to license manuals to go with software.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Wikinews is CC-BY. So I think they will generally pick the best "open
> content" license that suits the project, with GFDL as the default
> choice.
>
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
> On 08/11/06, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Does the Foundation have any preference for a particular open
>> content license, eg GFDL ? Or is it strictly neutral on this 'legality'
>> I just saw some thought seems to have been given to this question:-
>>
>> [ Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>>
>> ARTICLE I: NAME ...
>>
>> ARTICLE II: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
>> The general purpose and objectives of the Foundation shall be the
>> following: Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and
>> maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of
>> quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information,
>> and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that
>> will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free
>> documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by
>> the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar
>> licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org. The goals of the
>> foundation are to encourage the further growth and development of open
>> content, social sofware WikiWiki-based projects ... ]


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
On 11/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
> > We have, so far, twenty announced candidates for next month's
> > Arbitration Committee election.
>
> It hasn't been announced on this list...
>

No but its been anounced on people's watchlists, WP:AN, WP:SIGN and in
general conversation.

--
geni


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

body:
What would be the freest license for media, that still requires credit or
some sort?

Is PD-self the overall "freest" of licenses, in everyone's opinion?

Nick
(finally asking these pent up questions)


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] new article tracker toy

body:
A few days ago, someone pointed me at

	http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/newgrow.htm

which is a dynamically-updating count of the number of records
in the Online Computer Library Center's "Worldcat" library card
catalog.  Also -- this is the cute part -- there's a listing of
what the most-recently-added catalog entry at any given instant
actually is.  Naturally it occurred to me that it would be fun
to have the same sort of thing for Wikipedia.

So I dummied something up at

	http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cgi-bin/wikitracker.cgi

This is a demonstration only.  The implementation is somewhat of
a kludge, since it's implemented "outside" of mediawiki, without
any direct access to the database.  And I'm not proposing that
anything like this get officially added to mediawiki, either;
it's just food for thought.

I'm going to leave the demonstration running today (November 8)
*only*, so if you try the "wikitracker" link after this date,
it'll be stale.


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:39:55PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> On 11/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/11/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It seems like the structure becomes very flat with MediaWiki.
> > > All pages are under URL/PAGENAME..
> > > Is there a way to create /URL/DIRECTORY/SUBDIRECTORY/PAGE?
> >
> > Yeah, just create the page with a slash in the name. You can see the
> > effect on, e.g., RFC or AFD pages:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kerru_Dera
> >
> > Notice there's a link to the level up.
>
> You may have to enable subpages for the namespace in question,
> however, before this will work (Google "MediaWiki subpage" to get
> instructions).

And you want to consider *very* carefully whether overloading taxonomy
onto page names justifies the annoyance you will find yourself with
when trying to *link* to them.

Investigate categories fairly closely, before going here.  Really.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Search update frequency

body:
We've now dedicated a server to search index updates. I've got them running
in two threads, one for enwiki and one for everything else. Each one is a
loop, we should get a complete index update once every 30 hours or so.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikitech-l] Search update frequency

references:
<eir72f$62n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b8ceeef70611080552j17674af3y62d52fa917d868e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<eistnc$8ai$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:39:27AM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
> As for search and go, well my preference for a long time has been that we
> should remove the "search" button from the sidebar, to make it harder to
> find and thus reduce the request rate. Go is much faster than search, if it
> manages to find a title match without sending you on to the full text
> search. Most readers don't know the difference, and if they did, they would
> click "go" in the great majority of cases.

Second.

All in favor?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


body:
jra wrote:
> ...the annoyance you will find yourself with when trying to *link* to them.

?


from_name: Gregory Kohs

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Angela Beesley wrote on Saturday, November 4th:

>
On 11/4/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at
gmail.com<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>>
wrote:
>* I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched.
*...
>* If that's the case, why is it that:
*>*
*>* (1)  Angela Beesley has edited the article about Wikia.com
*
Because the policy didn't exist then. [[WP:COI]] was a guideline about
not making vanity pages until October 10th.

Angela.

+ + + + + +

The Vice President of Wikia has been editing the Wikipedia article about
Wikia again.  This time, November 8th:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikia&diff=86444818&oldid=86163187]

Now, as a reminder, WP:COI says:

* * * * *
If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

   1. *avoid editing* articles related to your organization or its
   competitors;
   2. *avoid participating* in deletion
discussions<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_processes>about
articles related to your organization or its competitors;
   3. *avoid linking* to the Wikipedia article or website of your
   corporation in other articles (see
Wikipedia:Spam<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam>).

If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite a
real or perceived conflict of interest, we *strongly encourage* you to
submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let
one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in
Wikipedia.
* * * * *

I didn't see that Beesley submitted her content for community review on the
article's talk page.

I know that her edit was a trifling one, but considering all of the heat and
light that's been generated in recent months about conflicts of interest,
why is it that Beesley's account doesn't receive so much as a warning,
especially when just 4 days ago, she was giving excuses as to why it was
okay for her to edit Wikia PRIOR to WP:COI coming out.  Well, now WP:COI is
out, but she's still editing.  Would it be so difficult for the Wikipedia
community to expect that Beesley recuse herself of editing just ONE article
-- the one about her own company?

Seriously, I know I'm trolling, but come on -- can anyone else see the
hypocrisy here?

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


subject: [Wikitech-l] new article tracker toy

body:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:37:47AM -0500, Steve Summit wrote:
> 	http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cgi-bin/wikitracker.cgi
>
> This is a demonstration only.  The implementation is somewhat of
> a kludge, since it's implemented "outside" of mediawiki, without
> any direct access to the database.  And I'm not proposing that
> anything like this get officially added to mediawiki, either;
> it's just food for thought.

Let me just say that that's pretty cool.  It might be pretty spiffy, if
the code and the load both permit, to gin that up into something that
was MAGIC, and could be parked in either a mainpage, or a skin...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Anthony wrote:
<snip>
> It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> have any idea what you have or how much you need.
>

"Um, we need some money. For stuff."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061108/49431430/attachment.pgp


body:
Anthony wrote:
<snip>
> It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> have any idea what you have or how much you need.
>

"Um, we need some money. For stuff."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061108/49431430/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Anthony wrote:
<snip>
> It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> have any idea what you have or how much you need.
>

"Um, we need some money. For stuff."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061108/49431430/attachment.pgp>


body:
Anthony wrote:
<snip>
> It's hard to come up with a good (*) appeal for money when you don't
> have any idea what you have or how much you need.
>

"Um, we need some money. For stuff."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061108/49431430/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:15:35AM -0500, Steve Summit wrote:
> jra wrote:
> > ...the annoyance you will find yourself with when trying to *link* to them.
>
> ?

One of the major advatages of Wikiae is the ease with which you can
name new pages, and inline-link to them, in a way that doesn't mess up
your writing, or require overly many piped links.

Subpages *completely* break that ability, in my only-somewhat-limited
experience.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


subject: [Wikitech-l] Search update frequency

body:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:37:56PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> On 08/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:39:27AM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
> > > As for search and go, well my preference for a long time has
> > > been that we should remove the "search" button from the sidebar,
> > > to make it harder to find and thus reduce the request rate. Go
> > > is much faster than search, if it manages to find a title match
> > > without sending you on to the full text search. Most readers don't
> > > know the difference, and if they did, they would click "go" in the
> > > great majority of cases.
>
> > Second. All in favor?
>
> Not quite - make it a "go" button, but still *call* it "Search."
> Because something everyone looks for on coming to a site is where to
> search.

Excellent point.

Ratified as amended.  :-)

And while I'm here: let me restate my pleasure with how the
Mediawiki page renders on my CSS-less Blackberry, and pray it to
continue that way...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Search update frequency

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> We've now dedicated a server to search index updates. I've got them running
> in two threads, one for enwiki and one for everything else. Each one is a
> loop, we should get a complete index update once every 30 hours or so.

Thanks, Tim!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Gregory Kohs wrote:

>The Vice President of Wikia has been editing the Wikipedia article about
>Wikia again.  This time, November 8th:
>
>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikia&diff=86444818&oldid=86163187]
>
So what!!!

>Now, as a reminder, WP:COI says:
>
>* * * * *
>If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
>
>   1. *avoid editing* articles related to your organization or its
>   competitors;
>   2. *avoid participating* in deletion
>discussions<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_processes>about
>articles related to your organization or its competitors;
>   3. *avoid linking* to the Wikipedia article or website of your
>   corporation in other articles (see
>Wikipedia:Spam<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam>).
>
>If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite a
>real or perceived conflict of interest, we *strongly encourage* you to
>submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let
>one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in
>Wikipedia.
>* * * * *
>
So a few people recently decided that they wanted a COI policy.  Let's
not pretend that there was suddenly a groundswell in support of this policy.

>I didn't see that Beesley submitted her content for community review on the
>article's talk page.
>
Why should she?  If you think that what she has said is wrong
{{sofixit}} instead of whining about it.

>I know that her edit was a trifling one, but considering all of the heat and
>light that's been generated in recent months about conflicts of interest,
>why is it that Beesley's account doesn't receive so much as a warning,
>especially when just 4 days ago, she was giving excuses as to why it was
>okay for her to edit Wikia PRIOR to WP:COI coming out.
>
Her edit may be a trifling one, but surely you trifle by complaining
about it.

>Well, now WP:COI is
>out, but she's still editing.  Would it be so difficult for the Wikipedia
>community to expect that Beesley recuse herself of editing just ONE article
>-- the one about her own company?
>
Why should she have to?  Her connection with Wikia is completely on the
table,  What is so notably biased about the way she is writing.

>Seriously, I know I'm trolling, but come on -- can anyone else see the
>hypocrisy here?
>
To what do we owe the honour of your cofession to hypocrisy?

Ec


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On 11/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know that her edit was a trifling one, but considering all of the heat and
> > light that's been generated in recent months about conflicts of interest,
> > why is it that Beesley's account doesn't receive so much as a warning,
>
> Now, what kind of "warning" do you consider appropriate?  NPOV0 [1]?
> Welcomeenpov [2]?
>
> Or perhaps you'd advocate some kind of hand-written warning?
>
> Whatever you consider the appropriate warning to give, your comment is
> symptomatic of the terrible notion that giving a warning is a
> punishment of some kind and should be doled out to any editor who
> misbehaves somehow.

Handwritten, always.  The warning templates are almost uniformly based
around the assumption that a warning is a punishment, rather than an
attempt to get someone to change their behavior.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 11/3/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> I do the same thing with "stub sorting" these days. I added a bit of CSS
> to my skin to make stub templates vanish from my sight and let other
> editors waste their time as they see fit. :)

I wish I could make them vanish from my watchlist, as well.  Over
three-quarters of the article edits on my watchlist fall into one of
four categories: interwiki bots, stubwanking, vandalism, and vandalism
reverts.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
>
>>Seriously, I know I'm trolling, but come on -- can anyone else see the
>>hypocrisy here?
>>
>>
>Hmm, a user banned for spamming wikipedia with pr puff pieces admits
>that he is trolling in making a silly complaint about nothing?  Yeah, I
>think I do see the hypocrisy.
>
I'm glad to see I'm not the only newbie who sees it that way. ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 11/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 11/8/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know that her edit was a trifling one, but considering all of the heat and
>>>light that's been generated in recent months about conflicts of interest,
>>>why is it that Beesley's account doesn't receive so much as a warning,
>>>
>>>
>>Now, what kind of "warning" do you consider appropriate?  NPOV0 [1]?
>>Welcomeenpov [2]?
>>
>>Or perhaps you'd advocate some kind of hand-written warning?
>>
>>Whatever you consider the appropriate warning to give, your comment is
>>symptomatic of the terrible notion that giving a warning is a
>>punishment of some kind and should be doled out to any editor who
>>misbehaves somehow.
>>
>>
>Handwritten, always.  The warning templates are almost uniformly based
>around the assumption that a warning is a punishment, rather than an
>attempt to get someone to change their behavior.
>
Hmmm.  Such warnings should only be issued by people with good penmanship.

Ec


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Gregory Kohs" wrote

> I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
> self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements&diff=86306336&oldid=86305792
>
>
> When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might
> post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive
> response was:
>
> "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell.
> None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's
> trying to make money off of it."

[[Screaming Lord Sutch]] would be proud of you. I didn't think that sort of attitude exported.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Dan Collins

body:
I thought so, thanks

On 11/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/8/06, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > and now this is getting crazy. It is accepted, if not written down, that
> > using another account or editing anonymously while banned is ban
> evasion,
> > and can get you banned. Second, I believe that editcounts are by account
> not
>
> Editing anonymously to evade blocks can get you banned even worser,
> yes. See [[WP:BLOCK]].
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


from_name: Osain Holmes

subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
I think (sorry if I'm wrong) that Kylu is female, and is running for the
elections, so we do have one.

The Halo.

>From: Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation
>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:21:51 -0800
>
>We have, so far, twenty announced candidates for next month's
>Arbitration Committee election. To the best of my knowledge, none of
>them is female.
>
>In previous elections, we also had very few female candidates, yet one
>of them finished either first or second in each of the last two
>elections. I'm sure we have some female contributors who would be
>well-qualified and bring a valuable perspective to the arbitration
>process, and I would encourage them to consider running.
>
>--Michael Snow
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live? Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Seriously, I know I'm trolling, but come on -- can anyone else see the
> hypocrisy here?

Hmm, a user banned for spamming wikipedia with pr puff pieces admits
that he is trolling in making a silly complaint about nothing?  Yeah, I
think I do see the hypocrisy.

--Jimbo