subject: [WikiEN-l] "brittle"

body:
Well, what I was envisioning was not a closed vote (as with the arbcom
elections) but rather a long and friendly training process, where
users are intergrated into the community in a series of steps, each
based on some positive act the user was involved in. For example
mediating a dispute, revertng a certain amount of vandalism, welcoming
newcomers, cleaning up articles, writing stubs, and being part of
getting an article featured, for example.

In summary, I'd like to see adminship be based on a series of
successes and training, rather than what can often amount to a rather
rough popularity contest. Also, we (as a community) simply need to
integrate users better, and be kinder and more helpful in general.

Jack (Sam Spade)


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> And to hell with the 'work-safe' crowd. They shouldn't be looking at
> pictures of people's bits on company time anyway.

I almost agree, but I do think that there is some "work-safe" thinking
which is sensible.  Our normal editorial judgment easily covers this
case, but it is helpful I think to understand that one reason for our
editorial judgments is the "work-safe" argument.

The "work-safe" argument that makes sense to me is just a subset of the
"principle of least astonishment" principle.

If I'm on an article about  the USB standard, or about Thomas Jefferson,
then I'd be pretty astonished if either on the page, or on any link from
the page, I got some actual pornography.

So yes, if people would get in trouble at work for looking at various
things from work, they shouldn't be looking at them at work.  But people
ought to be able to casually surf wikipedia for work-related topics
without fearing that they are going to accidentally stumble onto
something astonishing.

I don't know of any cases where we come close, even, to violating this,
because it's just very simple and reasonable.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
Phroziac wrote:
> Also, I think pictures should be encyclopedic. It's a little silly to
> just show a picture of a dick with no labels. Look at the picture on
> the clitoris article. It's all nice and labeled, and I think that's
> pretty encyclopedic. In fact, I was intending to make a labeled
> version of those penis pictures, but never got around to it yet.

I think that's exactly the right approach.  Contrary to common
impressions, I don't think even very conservative parents in the deep
south of the US (my own upbringing, you see) have a problem at all with
a serious and respectful article like 'clitoris' with a useful
illustration.

It might be interesting to do a survey of, for example, schoolteachers
in Alabama, to find out what they would find uncomfortable.  I suspect
that contrary to international perceptions, their views would not be
remarkably different from schoolteachers in other places.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
Unless there is something particularly strange about the copyright
situation in Iran, we should generally respect Iranian copyright law as
best we can, the same as we do for other countries around the world.

The situation with respect to treaties or non-treaties with the US seems
to me to have very little impact on this.  As always, we have to balance
 various factors in thoughtful ways.  Simply saying "Well, this is legal
under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument.

A similar situation exists with "fair use".  Fair use doctrine is
significantly better in the US than in other jurisdictions, which is a
fine thing, but German Wikipedia, for example, follows more restrictive
German law on this point.  Why?  Because part of our goal is re-use in
Germany.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> There are problems with that:
> 1) I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
> distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to
> Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block
> Iran from its readership.
> 2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue
> the Wikimedia Foundation.

Well, although I agree with you about the ultimate point here (we should
not violate Iranian copyrights, even if it is legal to do so in the US),
I don't find these two arguments to be the most compelling.

First, if we are breaking Iranian censorship laws, then so be it.  (I
have no idea, actually, but I would imagine that we are.)   Merely
"breaking Iranian law" isn't particularly worrisome.

Second, I think the point is that such use would be legal in the US, and
if so, I don't see that Iranians would have much of a way to sue us,
except perhaps in Iran, which would be more or less pointless.

I think the most compelling argument is that we want to encourage broad
re-use, including in Iran, and if Iranian copyright laws are more or
less as sensible as the laws of other places, then we should follow
those laws, regardless of ongoing disputes between the US and Iran which
may prevent an actual treaty.

--Jimbo


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Decency

body:
On 8/17/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple
> showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States.  We could
> show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24
> hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.
>
> It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally
> "obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia.  And our own
> internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.

Well, I'm sure you mean that (about the nipple) with certain
qualifications, but I understand your point. Looking at the law in
particular more specifically, it seems to have exceptions for
educational purposes, which would rule out any problem anyway.

> I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not*
> apply to models who are merely nude.  It applies, and I would have to
> look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in
> specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this,
> but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on
> [[autofellatio]] unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from
> the models (and I'm not).  But this does not apply to drawings, which is
> what we have there now, for better or worse.

Well, there is a rather crude one of a woman with a vibrator on that
decency page, though I imagine it will be deleted soon anyway as its
copyright information is dubious and incomplete (it was simply labled
"public domain" without explanation). But it is what sparked this
question to mind in particular.

But anyway, thank you for the clarifications -- I had a feeling you
would know a bit about this realm of legal information. ;-)

FF


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Decency

body:
Regardless of what one thinks of the project itself, I'm none too keen on
project members placing huge defacing templates on the top of articles they
think aren't "decent", e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=21246382&oldid=21242092

Jay.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject:
[Foundation-l] An other attempt for Announce-l;
	central info about wikimedia tech status and info

body:
On 8/17/05, Walter Vermeir . <walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> Crosspost to: foundation-l, wikitech-l
>
> At the end of 2002 on my request the mailing list Announce-l was created.

Hi,
For what it's worth, a few months ago, partly at my instigation, we
set up the foundation-news-l list, which was originally to announce
the publication of the Quarto - possibly with a pared down version of
its content in a html email, but this idea was booed quite loudly off
the wikipedia-l list. However, we haven't yet got around to doing
anything about it or defining it specifically, other than labelling it
"news from the wikimedia foundation". See:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-news-l

Would it be an idea to use this mailing list for the purpose you
propose, or just in a more general way? I'm cross-posting this to the
quarto-l list to see what people there think.

Cormac


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Laura Scudder

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Decency

body:
On 8/17/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then
> the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the
> distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a
> subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some
> precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
>

See [[Miller test]].  Wikipedia would fail to meet the definition of
obscene in the U.S. no matter what specific images we host due to the
third critera: "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value."

Laurascudder


from_name: Ryan W. (Merovingian)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Welcoming Peter C. Wayner and...

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20050817/010d8062/attachment.diff


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Resignation as CRO

body:
Dear Board,
dear community;

I hereby resign in my official position as Chief Research Officer. We
have reached a point where a fruitful collaboration is no longer
possible due to personal differences and a fundamental disagreement
about the nature and scope of the role.

On the level of substantial disagreements:

I see MediaWiki and the software it will spawn as an analog to the Linux
kernel for the free content movement. As is the case with the kernel, I
would like to see many outside companies and institutions participating
in its development. I saw it as part of my role as CRO to bring these
people together and to coordinate their activities. Members of the Board
feel that this role must be limited to waiting for others to establish
agreements first (or at least, that it should be limited in that way if
_I_ hold it).

This makes it impossible to respond to the question "What can we do to
help?" in any other way but by saying "Talk to this other person", which
puts me in a dependency situation which I find unworkable. Furthermore,
being frequently invited to conferences and generally a social person,
it strikes me as an unnatural separation of responsibilities. I believe
that stagnation and bad decisions in large organizations are often the
result of distinctions like the one which is made a condition of my
continued work as CRO.

I have now sent a list of about 30 contacts to the Board. These were
just the ones I could immediately find: companies, institutions and
individuals who would like to work with us. I would have liked to push
these cooperations forward. Not being allowed to do so is like being
hired as a typist but having one hand tied behind your back.

Essentially, I feel that officers should be allowed to operate within
the scope of an agreed upon strategy in their field of expertise, rather
than having to deal with communication bottlenecks. My field of
expertise was "Research & Outside Development", and not being allowed to
actually be a "first point of contact" and "guide and motivate outside
developers", as the position was defined, alters this role in a way
which I consider unwise and unnecessary.

Truthfully, the limitation of the role in this way would probably not be
necessary if it wasn't for a breakdown of trust between me and
individual members of the Board. So, I hope that someone else will
eventually be able to continue where I left off.

Why did this breakdown happen? Due to conflicts of personality and
goals, and in my belief, due to the fact that I *do* operate openly,
document what I do, and enter discussions -- and when I enter
discussions, refuse to just accept that someone else is correct based on
their position in the food chain or the volume of their voice. It is
easy to avoid controversy by operating in the dark, forming secret
clubs, deceiving people about your intentions, and sucking up to the
ones above you. I have never done so and do not intend to start.

On the level of personal disagreements:

I see the ideal Board/Officer relationship as one which is just as
oriented towards consensus as the remaining wiki process, where the
hierarchy doesn't generally come into play. This appears to be changing,
at least from my point of view. I am not accustomed to taking orders. I
question them, and for volunteer work, I want to have a substantial
influence on the nature of that work, rather than having this being
entirely defined by others.

I will not deny that there is also the personality conflict between me
and Anthere which has led to many public disagreements between us over
the last few years. Without assigning blame, I will just say that it
makes it very difficult for us to work together without constant fights.
Taking this position was a last effort to try to overcome this conflict.
It has failed.

As for me and Jimmy, I feel that the project can only tolerate one
person with an ego the size of a planet, and he was there first. ;-)
The truth is that Jimmy has put his life into this project, and the main
thing he expects in return is recognition and the continued leading
influence over its direction. I know that he has often perceived me as a
major threat to this goal, as someone who might try to undermine or
replace him, and this, too, has made cooperation sometimes difficult.

Recognizing all this, it is clear to me that the best solution is for me
to leave and live a life outside wiki.

On my personal future:

I will drastically limit my contributions to Wikimedia on all levels. I
will no longer be associated with the Research Network. I will stop
maintaining my Commons File Upload Service bot. I will no longer
moderate any mailing lists. I will no longer read wikipedia-l,
foundation-l, wikien-l, and most other mailing lists, with
the exception of wikitech-l. I will not be seen much on IRC. The best
way to reach me will be by e-mail to moeller (@) scireview (.) de.

I hope the Research Network will continue to exist, although I am sure
that its logo will be quietly disposed of now that I'm no longer there
to watch over it :-). As a person handling "pure" research, I think
James Forrester would be an excellent choice, due to his solid technical
understanding, good people skills and creative thinking. But I think the
Board should clearly define the position before a new officer is
appointed to it.

I will continue to work on Wikidata and Ultimate Wiktionary to the point
that we can release it to the world, and that people can improve it,
expand it and build new applications with it. I have not yet decided
whether I will have a significant future involvement with Wikinews.

Beyond that, we will see. I am thinking about ideas to financially
support free content creation. And then there's my belief in global
direct democracy enabled by quality information. Both of these are
projects which never have had much of a future within Wikimedia, so I
will pursue them on my own.

I wish Wikimedia no harm. It will grow beyound our imagination. But when
I feel that I can no longer realize my ambitions within an environment,
I move on. My small role in the history of Wikimedia is largely over.

All best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Resignation as CRO


from_name: Phroziac

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Exercises in social engineering

body:
Is your first name Jason, or your last name Boothy, or the end of your
username ending with 443, by any chance?

On 8/17/05, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. How long have you been an editor?
> I've been editing off and on since January 2003.
>
> > 2. Are you an admin?
> No. I was nominated once but I turned down the nomination. It makes
> you too jaded over time.
>
> > 3. Do you promise never to do anything so completely stupid ever again?
> The experiment has run its course, with results far beyond what I
> could have anticipated. I won't be doing it again.
>
> A. Nony Mouse
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google and Special:Recentchanges

body:
On 17/08/05, Juliano Ravasi Ferraz <ml at juliano.info> wrote:
> Rowan Collins wrote:
> > No, according to that link "When Google sees the attribute
> > rel="nofollow" on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we
> > rank websites in our search results."
>
> According to the link, right before the sentence you quoted:
>
> "...but you can also instruct Googlebot not to crawl individual links by
> adding rel="nofollow" to a hyperlink."

This aspect of the "standard" is really ambiguous in all the
announcements I've seen [I just read the original Google, Yahoo! and
MSN blog entries], and many many people are stating with conviction
that it *doesn't* stop the page being spidered. After all, the stated
purpose is to mark an link to another site as "untrusted", not to mark
an in-site link as not suitable for crawling.

But this may be a usable side-effect for URLs which won't be linked to
anywhere else on the Web (one thing that's very clear from what I've
read is that no *negative* rank or *delisting* is interpretted from
the link). I guess the only way to find out is to add it to a few
links of this sort and see if they do in fact get spidered...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Alphax

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
> If your definition of "trolling" is doing something to provoke a
> reaction... I plead guilty, yes. There was no other way to do it given
> the groupthink attitude towards dissent on certain topics.
>
> This is a standing offer to anyone that wants to take me up on it: I
> will answer any question you have, save for my real Wikipedia name, as
> completely as I can.
>

1. How long have you been an editor?
2. Are you an admin?
3. Do you promise never to do anything so completely stupid ever again?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDAwyF/RxM5Ph0xhMRA6EZAJ0Yo4/DIYP878LqpK7HKyDOCZDeEACgmrTV
QXYd+FfhHHFY1/MOBywHjEg=
=4OqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Decency

body:
Thanks for responding. I have added the contents of this email to the
[[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]]. If
there is a problem with reposting material from this mailing list,
please remove it.

- Ryan

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Fastfission wrote:
>
>
>>If images which would very likely count as
>>"obscene" under that particular state law (Florida?) were able to be
>>X-ed out (that is, their presence would be visible, even though their
>>content would not be) by default, and could be "enabled" by people who
>>swore that they were not minors (or didn't live in the U.S.), wouldn't
>>that solve a few problems at once? Those who are worried about seeing
>>a nipple wouldn't by default, while those who wanted to see them could
>>easily do so, and instead of doing it under the guise of someone's
>>projected "decency", we were doing it simply to comply with U.S. law
>>(blame  U.S. prudery on this all you want, but I'm betting laws of a
>>similar sort, though with different boundaries set, exist in most
>>countries).
>>
>>
>
>I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple
>showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States.  We could
>show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24
>hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.
>
>It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally
>"obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia.  And our own
>internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.
>
>One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial
>judgment is not the same thing as censorship.  We don't show full-blown
>mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of
>editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.
>
>
>
>>An
>>additional thought which occurred to me is that I'm fairly sure a
>>federal law was passed not too long ago which requires age
>>verification information for nude models to be hosted by the website
>>hosting their pictures (proof that they are at least 18 years old). If
>>that's the case, that's another unpleasant legal/technical thing to
>>think about.
>>
>>
>
>I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not*
>apply to models who are merely nude.  It applies, and I would have to
>look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in
>specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this,
>but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on
>[[autofellatio]] unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from
>the models (and I'm not).  But this does not apply to drawings, which is
>what we have there now, for better or worse.
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: Jake Waskett

subject: [WikiEN-l] spam filter

body:
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 16:14, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 17/08/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, there is.  There is a list of sites on Meta which may not
> > exist as links in any Wikimedia sites.  See
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
> >
> > However, earlychristianwritings.com isn't, and doesn't seem ever to
> > have been, on that list.
>
> Hm. That's odd - it was definitely blocked earlier, I tested it, but I
> couldn't find anything matching on the list either. And now it's not
> blocked anymore, but the list hasnt changed.

Thanks folks. I think that this phenomenon deserves a name. Can I propose
polterwiki?


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [Foundation-l] Resignation as CRO

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Erik Moeller wrote:

> I hereby resign in my official position as Chief Research Officer.

Good bye, Erik. Thank you for your efforts to date. We will miss you. I
hope you don't leave us completely, or, at least, will return at some
point soon.

Yours sincerely,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDA5k9kn3kUxZyJx0RAq2DAKCQAgBKJMlv+N4YCWGj931WoiTlkACeOTHB
IISpGVYCKGR6xcFCydFYAFI=
=Te8H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] Resignation as CRO


from_name: Henning Heitkötter

subject: [Wikitech-l] Website leeching wikipedia-content

body:
Hi,

the website_www.wissens-schatz.de appears to be mirroring live content
from the german Wikipedia.

New articles and images are immediately accessible, for example:
* http://www.wissens-schatz.de/cgi-bin/njw.pl?Query=Horst-Dieter%20Esch
*
http://www.wissens-schatz.de/cgi-bin/njw.pl?Query=Bild:Karte%20Loipersdorf.png

If someone is keen on saving bandwidth or whatsoever, here is a chance :)

--Henning.H
 [[de:Benutzer:HenHei]]


from_name: Heinz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Hint: New Extension for Inclusion of Web Mapping
	Service into MediaWiki

body:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GISWiki/QuickWMS-Extension

Heinz


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Welcoming Peter C. Wayner and...

body:
So what you are saying is that each new user lives in a superposition
of good and evil, they are infact two completly different users in two
different universa? So like, he's Flcelloguy in one, and Willy on
Wheels in another until he actually start making edits. Then he
becomes, I don't know, a mediator?

--gkhan

PS. I wrote ~~~~ at the end of my message. Note to self: Spend less
time on wikipedia and never take the wikiholic test.

On 8/17/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
> I actually think this is more of a Schrodinger's cat type of problem.  There's a 50% chance of a new user being good (or bad).
>
> > Clearly we need developers to make an addition to the login creation
> > screen!
> >
> >    Please indicate the purpose of this account:
> >    [*] Good
> >    [ ] Evil
> >
> > I suppose one could argue that there should be a
> > "Neutral" option too, and that everybody must choose it.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Stan


from_name: Ryan Norton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
It's a difficult situation. The only idea I had was putting up one of
those "might be objectionable for anyone under 18" etc. pages for
articles with explicit subject matter for all anons.  That way you
(theoretically) can't "stumble" onto one of the pages in question. Same
thing for users if they want.

(I know it would be hard to enforce, but its an idea nonetheless).

Ryan


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: An other attempt for Announce-l;
 central info about wikimedia tech status and info

body:
Cormac Lawler schreef:
> Hi,
> For what it's worth, a few months ago, partly at my instigation, we
> set up the foundation-news-l list, which was originally to announce
> the publication of the Quarto - possibly with a pared down version of
> its content in a html email, but this idea was booed quite loudly off
> the wikipedia-l list. However, we haven't yet got around to doing
> anything about it or defining it specifically, other than labelling it
> "news from the wikimedia foundation". See:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-news-l
>
> Would it be an idea to use this mailing list for the purpose you
> propose, or just in a more general way? I'm cross-posting this to the
> quarto-l list to see what people there think.
>
> Cormac

Of it is
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-news-l
or
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/Announce-l

is not important. Only that that er is a place where you can easy get
basic information about the status of the wikimedia systems that have an
impact for the users.

--
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: An other attempt for Announce-l;
	central info about wikimedia tech status and info

body:
On 8/17/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am not certain Cormac, though open to any suggestion.
> The reason is simply that it will make appear that any communication
> issue is in the hands of the Foundation, rather than in the hands of the
> community itself. I think this is wrong for the following reasons
>
> 1) some wikipedians do not want to be recognised at wikimedians, being
> somehow default members of the structure
>
> 2) some wikipedians will feel this as an overbearing control of the
> Foundation over communication. This is wrong. In all "democracies"
> (using the word on purpose to reflect Erik Zachte mail), it is important
> that several medias report information. As such, as Michael best put it,
> it is important independant newspapers such as the one on the english
> wikipedia exist. Similarly, an independant announcement mailing list
> could exist, possibly to announce informations that the Foundation feel
> not concerned with, but that the community would
>
> 3) as soon as the Foundation is concerned, I feel that there is
> something blocking people. Look at Quarto. To get it done, we have to
> contact people each time. I would love that people feel empowered to
> publish in it about something that matters to them. But they won't do
> it, for whatever reasons. I regret this. Similarly, for the announcement
> of last Quarto, why was it not done ? I still wonder if it was not done
> because nobody was interested in doing so (or had no time to do it), or
> if it was somehow that someone waited silently for me to say "let's go".
>   I do not know. But in no way announcements should have to be always
> pushed by a couple of people. So, if an announcement list have to be set
> up, I do not want people from the board to be involved in it, to avoid
> people saying again that there is no democracy at all. It is so far away
> from what my perception is what we are doing that I wish it to be fully
> independant.
>
> ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

That's a fundamentally good point, and I take it wholeheartedly
(although I don't understand wikipedians not wanting to be wikimedians
- am i being naiive or is it just them?)

I was just noting that one mailing list isn't being used at all - and
it's not clear, from the continual list of subscribers, that these
people are simply signing up for news of the Quarto, or something more
like what Walter is asking for, since that's how it appears to be
"branded". I'll leave specific references to the Quarto out for the
moment, because Walter's question is one we all have and was voiced at
Wikimania and so we should answer it. So do we need it, or is it
duplicating something we already have?

Cormac


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO

body:
Erik Moeller, your announcement is a most regrettable final step after an
escalation of sentiments on both sides. You invested too much in wikimedia
projects to let your pride get the better of you. You have strong opinions
and sometimes are impatient and even a bit short tempered, but your drive
and vision are most wanted.

I do not know enough of the current matter at hand to judge who is wrong and
who is right, if any is at all. I read all the exchanges between you and
Anthere but that seems not be the whole story. I do however believe that
much confusion could have been avoided when the role of CRO had been better
defined. But the same goes for the role of the board!

I do feel somewhat uncomfortable with the ongoing trend to treat the board
as the people who pull the strings. In my view a hierarchy is indeed
emerging, where you Erik, object to, but which you, perhaps unwittingly,
fostered in the past, in fact I noticed on several occasions how you
deferred matters to the board instead of to the community.

Role and responsabilities of the board have never been clearly defined,
unless we view the bylaws as such, but those seem more like a safety valve,
with formulations that only should be applied in extreme emergencies "The
Board of Trustees shall be empowered to make any and all regulations, rules,
policies, user agreements, terms of use, and other such decisions as may be
necessary for the continued functioning of the Foundation not inconsistent
with these bylaws."

The board according to Jimbo is currently discussing (ironically behind
closed curtains) how to improve democracy within wikimedia. After experts
have been consulted the community will have a final say, Jimmy told us, but
it still does not feel like the wiki way, where everyone helps in the
brainstorming process when ideas are still fluid.

Having said that, we are lucky in my view with the board members we have,
who are mostly a cohesive force. I've seen several occasions in the more
distant past where Angela and Anthere expressly refused to take decisions
before the community had spoken. Jimbo delegates a lot, I would say. Also I
don't believe Jimbo's ego is "the size of a planet". His ambitions are,
almost literally, "the size of a planet", which is different.

So let us be inspired to clarify roles, responsabilities and procedures, at
a time when we can do without in many occasions, in preparation for a time
when we might need more clarity and transparency badly. Erik, in fact your
collision with the board is a wake up call in this respect. Please stay and
help us turn this into a positive experience.

Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO


from_name: Anthere

body:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
> On 8/17/05, Walter Vermeir . <walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:
>
>>Crosspost to: foundation-l, wikitech-l
>>
>>At the end of 2002 on my request the mailing list Announce-l was created.
>
>
> Hi,
> For what it's worth, a few months ago, partly at my instigation, we
> set up the foundation-news-l list, which was originally to announce
> the publication of the Quarto - possibly with a pared down version of
> its content in a html email, but this idea was booed quite loudly off
> the wikipedia-l list. However, we haven't yet got around to doing
> anything about it or defining it specifically, other than labelling it
> "news from the wikimedia foundation". See:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-news-l
>
> Would it be an idea to use this mailing list for the purpose you
> propose, or just in a more general way? I'm cross-posting this to the
> quarto-l list to see what people there think.
>
> Cormac

I am not certain Cormac, though open to any suggestion.
The reason is simply that it will make appear that any communication
issue is in the hands of the Foundation, rather than in the hands of the
community itself. I think this is wrong for the following reasons

1) some wikipedians do not want to be recognised at wikimedians, being
somehow default members of the structure

2) some wikipedians will feel this as an overbearing control of the
Foundation over communication. This is wrong. In all "democracies"
(using the word on purpose to reflect Erik Zachte mail), it is important
that several medias report information. As such, as Michael best put it,
it is important independant newspapers such as the one on the english
wikipedia exist. Similarly, an independant announcement mailing list
could exist, possibly to announce informations that the Foundation feel
not concerned with, but that the community would

3) as soon as the Foundation is concerned, I feel that there is
something blocking people. Look at Quarto. To get it done, we have to
contact people each time. I would love that people feel empowered to
publish in it about something that matters to them. But they won't do
it, for whatever reasons. I regret this. Similarly, for the announcement
of last Quarto, why was it not done ? I still wonder if it was not done
because nobody was interested in doing so (or had no time to do it), or
if it was somehow that someone waited silently for me to say "let's go".
  I do not know. But in no way announcements should have to be always
pushed by a couple of people. So, if an announcement list have to be set
up, I do not want people from the board to be involved in it, to avoid
people saying again that there is no democracy at all. It is so far away
from what my perception is what we are doing that I wish it to be fully
independant.

ant


from_name: Lester D.K. Chow and Associates

subject:
[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-L Mailing List Members - What I Don't Like About
 Wikipedia

body:
I am a Chinese-American of the third generation.  I worked as a political
negotiator, during the Iraq War in 1990.  My college background is four
years of college as a business management major and history minor.  My
family are very prominent Chinese people as my second cousin is China's
renowned Premier Zhou Enlai.  I am a member of China's Imperial family and
a self-taught cultural expert on China and the Middle East.

I wrote additions to the topics of "Eber," "Joktan," and the "Zhou
Dynasty."  My family's dynasty of which I am a qualified expert.  In
history, there are conflicting interpretations as to events and dates.  I
think that it is wrong to only allow one view to dominate and to not
publish all valid views.  Somehow, your editors erased what I had
republished about two or three hours ago (my time, at this writing, is
August 17, 2005, 11:10 p.m.).  Then, too, I think that it is wrong for
people (the general public) to erase all of the hard work and time that you
have put into your article and to continually erase it every time you post.

Can anything be done about this?

Yours,

Lester D.K. Chow
lchow at lava.net

Ps: I own the copyright to the information that I posted, yet my articles
were deleted and I am not sure who did it!


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Decency

body:
I just nominated the template for deletion, given the huge numbers of
talk pages it has been used to spam.

Sam

On 8/17/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of what one thinks of the project itself, I'm none too keen on
> project members placing huge defacing templates on the top of articles they
> think aren't "decent", e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=21246382&oldid=21242092
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Decency

body:
On 17/08/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of what one thinks of the project itself, I'm none too keen on
> project members placing huge defacing templates on the top of articles they
> think aren't "decent", e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=21246382&oldid=21242092

A lot of the more objectionable stuff about this project is being done
by anons - I suspect it's just a delight for people wanting to troll
both sides...

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


from_name: Fantasy

subject: [Foundation-l] 300 Euro for excellent Articles: an experiment

body:
Summary:

I would like to offer 300 EURO (de:100, it:100, en:100 Euro) for the first
featured article (exzellenter Artikel/bella prosa) with ref. to South Tyrol.

1) Are there good reasons not to do it?
2) Could the fondation act as trustee?
_______________________________________________________

Hi Jimbo, dear fondations en/de/it,

On my to-do list is an item: "Write at least one excellent article about South
Tyrol". As you maybe know, my wife is not very happy that I spend too much
time with Wikipedia...
... so I think I have good reason to give someone some money if in exchange I
can delete an item from my to-do list and make my wife happy by that.

There where some really shocked replies when Achim proposed on de to give a
prize for good Wikipedia articles. Currently the state on de is something
like "prizes are ok, but not money":
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten

But I think I have good reasons to give money for a excellent article about my
home land. It's my home. And it's for my wife.

	Some critics said, the article will be influenced by the money-giver.

To prevent this, I thought about the fondation to act as trustee:
- I give 300 Euro to the fondation (de?)
- The Wikipedians decide who are the winners of the contest
- If there is a winner, the fondation gives the money to him
- If there is no winner, the money is just a donation to the fondation ;-)

Are there reasons not to do this? I look forward to read your opinions,
Fantasy :-)

PS: Maybe this can be seen similar to the classical musicians who worked under
the patronage system (M?zenatentum/mecenante), instead of "this starts the
selling out of the Wikipedia idea..."

PPS: Ah, I nearly forgot: why 3x100 Euro?
Wikipedia is a multilingual project. South Tyrol has officially 3 languages.
de/it/ladin. There is no ladin Wikipedia, therefore only de/it. But adding en
would increase visibility and cross-checking.
More details about the contest will follow, if I can go on with it...


body:
Cormac Lawler schreef:

> moment, because Walter's question is one we all have and was voiced at
> Wikimania and so we should answer it. So do we need it, or is it
> duplicating something we already have?
>
> Cormac

Yes? You all have voiced that question? Great. That is a start.

Of it would be duplicating something we already have; on some level yes.
  If you watch the postings of the technical mailing lists and the bugs
of Bugzilla and the technical IRC channels I suppose you can find this
information also. But is hidden inside many other information.

It is not practical. it is like if you work in a company then tech
support will send  an email to all the users the inform them that the
file server will be down form 16 hours. The will not assume that you
have read the technical notice somewhere hidden in an obscure part of
the Intranet and not inform there users.

Sending a clear notice to an central point to inform the users of a
system about the status is so normal that it should not be something to
discuss about.
--
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 8/18/05, Walter Vermeir <walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:

> Sending a clear notice to an central point to inform the users of a
> system about the status is so normal that it should not be something to
> discuss about.

Completely agreed. Wheter it is a mailing list that people can
subscribe to, or a blog (there is one I think, but maybe not
advertised enough?) or an info page which gives important information
such as "OTRS is down, will be for a week, contact so and so to get
emails redirected", it is important that the community be informed of
technical issues that have an impact on the projects as a whole, or on
the work some people do. OTRS down certainly has a greater impact than
people might think.

Just as an example, the hosting company I use for my emails and
website has a company.info page that is run on a different server, and
that keeps the users updated on what is going wrong, what is being
done, etc. It has been widely advertised, and is a great help when
things go wrong. Maybe we already have the tools, and just don't know
about them. If that is the case, maybe a little advertisement would do
the trick.

Best,

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objectionable material

body:
>
>If you know my personal opinions (which, by the way, I do not think
>should be controlling policy on these matters) on the issue of
>censorship and what kids should be looking at, you'll know how extremely
>unlikely it would be that I would be on a talk show saying anything of
>the sort.
>
>I prefer to be able to say: "We thought of that already, and we have
>gone through a long and difficult process of editorial judgment to treat
>delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner.  Nothing in
>Wikipedia is intentionally offensive, but of course there will always be
>people who are offended by something.  We do our best to take a serious
>and thoughtful approach to these matters."
>
>I have at times been supportive of the idea of tagging, and if that is
>the best way to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational
>manner, then fine.  But I think the default view of Wikipedia should not
>be affected by such measures, so I would never be saying "oh, but you
>have to do this, this, and that to see this stuff".
>
>--Jimbo
>
>
>
>
I dream of a world where my children (eventually), and Jimbo's children,
and everyone else's children can browse wikipedia in a state where they
can still see a picture of autofellatio on the article autofellatio but
can go to the article on USB or the main page and not see a picture of
some guy's anus blown up to cover the whole page.  I think that we
should stick to not censoring wikipedia at all and it really isn't up to
us to take care of what people can see, it's the parent's, teachers, or
whoevers job as guardians to make sure that the kids aren't browsing
into the nudity on wikipedia which btw legitimate pictures of nudity on
articles are few and far between.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Angela

body:
On 8/18/05, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/18/05, Walter Vermeir <walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:
>
> > Sending a clear notice to an central point to inform the users of a
> > system about the status is so normal that it should not be something to
> > discuss about.
>
> Completely agreed. Wheter it is a mailing list that people can
> subscribe to, or a blog (there is one I think, but maybe not
> advertised enough?) or an info page...

The problem at the moment isn't that these things don't exist. It's
that too many of them exist. If someone does notify a mailing list,
they get complaints about why they didn't also notify half a dozen
other mailing lists, or the village pump, or the blog, or goings-on,
or IRC, or meta, or ...

Is another mailing list actually going to solve this? Are people going
to accept that there is one place for this information? What about
those who don't want to be on a mailing list and feel this information
should be on the wiki? Where are translations going to occur? If the
list is aimed to be low-traffic, sending dozens of translations every
time something is posted isn't going to be too popular. If the aim is
to get information out in a timely way, waiting until a message is
translated won't really help to meet that requirement. If every
language has a separate announcements list, it won't help to meet the
goal of having one central point of information.

I'm not saying I oppose the idea. I don't, and I think something like
this is very much needed. I'm just concerned the solution isn't as
easy as simply creating a new mailing list.

Angela.


body:
On 8/18/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is another mailing list actually going to solve this? Are people going
> to accept that there is one place for this information? What about
> those who don't want to be on a mailing list and feel this information
> should be on the wiki? Where are translations going to occur? If the
> list is aimed to be low-traffic, sending dozens of translations every
> time something is posted isn't going to be too popular. If the aim is
> to get information out in a timely way, waiting until a message is
> translated won't really help to meet that requirement. If every
> language has a separate announcements list, it won't help to meet the
> goal of having one central point of information.
>
> I'm not saying I oppose the idea. I don't, and I think something like
> this is very much needed. I'm just concerned the solution isn't as
> easy as simply creating a new mailing list.

Oh, I completely agree about not creating another mailing list. The
opt-in idea is anyway never going to solve the problem. About
translations, on this particular subject, I would argue that they are
not needed, no more than we have ever translated the "Sorry we have a
problem". If we can use an existing page, or blog, or accessible place
for that kind of information, I would be more than happy. As I said,
this is all about advertising that place so that people know where to
look.

Best,

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] enotifwiki 3.49 w/ mediawiki REL1_5 CVS 200508172345

body:
to whom it may concern

changes:
- (bug 3162) fixed
- maintenance update from mw rel1_5 cvs

http://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4473


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Why did this breakdown happen? Due to conflicts of personality and
> goals, and in my belief, due to the fact that I *do* operate openly,
> document what I do, and enter discussions -- and when I enter
> discussions, refuse to just accept that someone else is correct based on
> their position in the food chain or the volume of their voice.

You operate openly do you? Perhaps it's about time then that you told
everyone about the deal you did to obtain this position.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO


from_name: Zachary Harden

body:
Dear All,

I already put the page on Peer Review
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/South_Tyrol) based on
how much I edited the article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Tyrol&diff=21263326&oldid=20787287).
I know I still could add more, but I still wanted to make sure I am on the
right track, since this is out of the ordinary of me to work on Italian
articles.

Regards,

Zachary Harden (en:User:Zscout370)

>From: Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: millosh at mutualaid.org,Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
><foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 300 Euro for excellent Articles: an experiment
>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:56:03 +0200
>
>I support Jim's proposal (as well as I see that User:Zscout370
>allready started to work on article :) ) and I would ask community
>from sr: to help to build the article and to translate it in Serbian.
>
>And, of course, the money should be sent to Guaka :)
>
>On 8/18/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > I propose instead that we all pitch in to write an excellent article as
> > a gift for Fantasy's wife, and that he direct the money to Guaka to fund
> > the creation of 300 articles in Bambara Wikipedia.
> >
> > This seems very nice to me. :-)
> >
> > --Jimbo


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 8/18/2005 5:48:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sabine_cretella at yahoo.it writes:

When  talking about contents we can also think about companies that maybe
would  feature an article paying it ... why not? It is a contribution as
well and  we can get things done. And why not say: if you want this
article to be  translated you also have to give something of something
that is important  to other projects? Example: I have an article
translated into English (and  really this is not "so much needed") - in
addition to that I pay for  another article in any of the languages that
are "important to develop" -  so everyone is happy.

Sure it is a contribution, but what would that do to our credibility.  Having
companies pay for articles, especially feature articles, raises the  question
of whether they are simply advertising pieces in the guise of  articles, or
genuine NPOV coverage. If a company pays us to write or  feature an article,
does that mean that we are beholden to them to provide their  POV as well? What
about if a political or religious group tries to do the same  thing? To what
degree will corporate or other moneys be used as leverage  against NPOV.

I am confident that the community will reject this idea.

Danny


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[Foundation-l] Chapters,
	deductibility and donation profiles (was Wikimania 2006 - host city
	contest to open onSeptember 1st 20)

body:
On 8/16/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Looking at how the Red Cross works would be very interesting in this regard.
> They are composed of one parent organization based in Switzerland and many
> national organizations in various countries. All the ones I'm aware of work
> internationally.

IIRC, The American branch of the Red Cross has specific enabling
legislation for it in US federal law and enjoys a federal charter.  It
holds unique status even amongst the relatively small number of
organizations holding federal charters.  The rule about tax-exempt
money entering or leaving the country is specially waived for the ARC.
 Obtaining the same status for Wikimedia would require a massive
lobbying effort.

Kelly


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
This leads to a legal question I've had for some time and comes up
again and again regarding jurisidiction.

Somebody has recently pointed out on another page that in Russia,
banal (straightforward) photographs of 3-D objects do not apparently
generate copyrights (whether this is true or not, I'm not sure, but
let's just assume it is for the moment). In the US, such is not the
case -- any 2-D image of a 3-D object is likely to generate its own
copyright, however banal.

So can we say that images of this sort that never leave Russia -- that
is, are not republished anywhere else -- are in the public domain? I'm
leaning towards "well, probably no," mainly because it would only seem
to matter if we were being hosted on Russian servers and under Russian
copyright laws. That is, if somebody sued someone over this in court
here, they couldn't point to a Russian copyright law either way on
this. On the other hand, would they even be granted standing?

How much do international treaties affect us on this? WIPO, etc.?
Obviously we have US laws to deal with, but who else? I know that one
issue is re-use, but I think there's a more direct issue than that
which I still find confusing.

FF

On 8/18/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of where a certain text comes from. It's copyrighted as
> soon as the author puts it on paper in a tangible form. Some
> governments give up their copyrights over this material, but I think
> anything that can be traced to a written source that's not
> specifically released under the GFDL or released into the PD by it's
> author is off limits to Wikipedia regardless where it comes from.
>
> --Mgm
>
> On 8/18/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> > > There are problems with that:
> > > 1) I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
> > > distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to
> > > Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block
> > > Iran from its readership.
> > > 2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Well, although I agree with you about the ultimate point here (we should
> > not violate Iranian copyrights, even if it is legal to do so in the US),
> > I don't find these two arguments to be the most compelling.
> >
> > First, if we are breaking Iranian censorship laws, then so be it.  (I
> > have no idea, actually, but I would imagine that we are.)   Merely
> > "breaking Iranian law" isn't particularly worrisome.
> >
> > Second, I think the point is that such use would be legal in the US, and
> > if so, I don't see that Iranians would have much of a way to sue us,
> > except perhaps in Iran, which would be more or less pointless.
> >
> > I think the most compelling argument is that we want to encourage broad
> > re-use, including in Iran, and if Iranian copyright laws are more or
> > less as sensible as the laws of other places, then we should follow
> > those laws, regardless of ongoing disputes between the US and Iran which
> > may prevent an actual treaty.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow

references:
<20050818001120.4EF9E1190A7C@zwinger.wikimedia.org>
	<4303D9A6.10301@earthlink.net> <de1bap$en3$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
> ...
> > I want to add some thoughts on the transparency issue he raised. A very
> > critical part of managing any organization, especially one as committed
> > to ideals of openness as Wikimedia, is reporting back to everyone about
> > your activities. Given the transparency of most actions on a wiki,
> > producing such reports is especially important for off-wiki activity.
> >
> > In particular this applies to the board, the officers (including those
> > of local chapters), and the developers. I trust all of these people and
> > the processes by which they were chosen, but we still need to hear from
> > all of them regularly about their work. The proliferation of non-public
> > mailing lists and wikis adds to the concern. I understand that some
> > matters cannot be announced at the outset, and that deliberation and
> > delay may allow for a more thorough report. But on the other hand,
> > disappearing behind closed doors, not to be heard from again, is not an
> > acceptable option.
> ...
> > Keeping people informed is essential to sustaining trust, and makes a
> > tremendous difference in whether they will accept the decisions you
> make.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
>
>
> Right
>
> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
> situation, and make suggestions to improve.

Well, let's start with the non-public mailing lists. I'm aware of the leagal
one. What other non-public mailing lists are there (I think Erik mentioned
one with ''all the smartest people'' on it). Where are these list
documented, who are the members, and maybe, to ease some concerns and build
trust, what were the last twently thread topics?

...
>
> * exactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ? Please cite
> some examples of issues where we have been failing ? Was the information
> missing related to legal issues ? To partnership ? To budget ?

This is an amazing statement, how can we ask for information that is seceret
and that we don't know about?

* please cite some examples of how we could inform you. Please not "I
> want to be more informed", but HOW, WHERE, WHEN and under WHICH form.

Well, an open and transparent wiki comes to mind.
...

On which topics do you think things are missing ?

Again, how can we ask for information that is seceret and that we don't know
about?
...

Anthere

I 'm suprised at the tone of your reply, Anthere. Longtime editors like
Michael, who've invested hundreds, if not thousands of hours in the project
don't deserve to be snapped at when they politely express concerns over a
lack of openess.


subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

body:
Anthere wrote:

> What is funny is that it is assumed allright that developers only
> communicate in their area, but it is not allright for others. Why ?

I tried to explain the difference in my earlier message. Basically,
people see developer decisions and actions as more technical than
political (most of the time), so they feel less need to be informed. And
even so there have been plenty of complaints about lack of information
from the developers - usually when something has gone wrong and the
developers are too busy trying to fix it to provide much information
back to the community.

That's all the comment I have time for at the moment. I'll try to
respond to some of the other thoughts and questions floating around later.

--Michael Snow


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

references:
<de1q8g$mft$1@sea.gmane.org> <BF29EFE8.8642%wgfinley@dynascope.com>
	<453b6e5050818065871f6c7c0@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 8/18/05, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I personally strongly believe that the organisation *is not* a wiki,
> that the learning process is longer and that unfortunately, when you
> make a mistake, nobody can just revert what mistake you have made, you
> have to assume the consequences. In that, I believe our actual board
> has done a good job. I can understand that they feel a bit lonely
> sometimes, as there is no "edit" button on whatever decision they
> make, and they are indeed carrying the weight of it on their
> shoulders. The only *wiki* thing I personally would allow in this case
> is "assume good faith" ...

I'm glad someone finally pointed this out - a wiki governs the
mechanics for collaborative document writing. It does not provide a
blueprint for running a legal entity with financial obligations and
time sensitive decision making.

As Delphine said, there are things from the spirit of wiki that we can
and should carry over - transparency, volunteerism
(self-identification for tasks), assume good faith. Others, like
phantom authority and rollback (anyone/everyone having veto-power)
don't have a place at the board/officer level. To sooner we realize
not all wiki concepts map over, the better.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow


from_name: Milos Rancic

body:
I support Jim's proposal (as well as I see that User:Zscout370
allready started to work on article :) ) and I would ask community
from sr: to help to build the article and to translate it in Serbian.

And, of course, the money should be sent to Guaka :)

On 8/18/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I propose instead that we all pitch in to write an excellent article as
> a gift for Fantasy's wife, and that he direct the money to Guaka to fund
> the creation of 300 articles in Bambara Wikipedia.
>
> This seems very nice to me. :-)
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: W. Guy Finley

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

body:
On 8/18/05 6:09 AM, "Anthere" <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Grey wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
>>> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
>>> situation, and make suggestions to improve.
>>>
>>> Michael is mentionning that "with the developers, they struggle
>>> constantly with more pressing issues". And that "we could use three or
>>> four times as many developers".
>>
>>
>> Hackers rarely communicate outside of themselves. Fact of life in that
>> arena. However, the server log:
>>
>> http://wp.wikidev.net/Server_admin_log
>>
>> isn't too bad.
>
> What is funny is that it is assumed allright that developers only
> communicate in their area, but it is not allright for others. Why ?
>
>

If you're saying that because the developers communicate in their area or in
somewhat of a closed fashion then it's okay for the board I think you would
be sadly mistaken.  The developers weren't elected by the community to
represent them.  The developers are only working on specific technology
issues whereas the board has oversight of the whole thing.

I made reference to this before Anthere but let me put it bluntly - you have
some work to do on boardsmanship.  Chiding those you represent for not
having complete enough complaints is not going to endear you to any hearts
nor help anything.  The board's position is one of governance, it shouldn't
be making day to day decisions on things that need to be run, that's what
officers are for.  Those officers should have clearly defined job
responsibilities set by the board and if they aren't living up to them then
the board, as a board, should give them direction.  Individual board members
have NO power outside of their vote in a duly convened board meeting.

When one of your constituents says to you that he doesn't feel you are
transparent, you don't insist on a dissertation on where you aren't
transparent, you take that feedback and you do that YOURSELF and determine
if it's valid and if it's something that can be used.  I'll give you a hint
though, he's not the only one that has said you're not being transparent.

When boards get into "shell" mode or the "us against them mode" is when
things get dangerous and you start to lose site of what your underlying
purpose is.  Long and short of it, listen to complaints even if you think
they're from crackpots.  Don't tell the crackpots they're crackpots just say
"think you very much, I'll consider that".  When there's a lot of them don't
resort to private IRC chats, emails amongst each other, or closed board
meetings to consider the issue.

Worst of all, don't tell people "we made a decision on this and it will be
announced in a few days" -- nothing says to people more "hey, we did this in
private and guess what, you're not good enough to know what we decided yet
or you would already know."

Just my advice after having served many years on many different boards of
various kinds.

--Guy (en User:Wgfinley)


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow


from_name: ANDREA MARTIN

subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
    Hi I was reading your post about personal attacks, to avoid personal attacks is just how it sounds. Avoid using the word "you". If someone wants to point something out as being hypocritical, they should use language such as that was a hypocritical statement, not you are a hypocrite. Calling someone a hypocrite implies they are a hypocrite in general, and not just being a hypocrite about a certain topic.
ANDREA MARTIN


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO

body:
Erik Zachte wrote:
> To keep close to the subject at hand: the way that new officers were
> appointed is a prime example,
> It came out of the blue. No discussion about definition of roles. I got very
> much the impression that officers were to define their own role.

It was my view that we were for the most part simply recognizing roles
that already existed.  There wasn't much need to discuss the scope of
Danny's role as grants co-ordinator because he was already doing a fine
job of it without benefit of a title.  The purpose of the title was not
to give him additional responsibilities, but rather to make it easier
(more transparent) for people who wanted to work on grants to know where
to go to help.

> I asked if Wikimania would be a good place to discuss this more openly and
> he agreed,
> but his answer on a question by Tim Starling was something close to "We are
> working on reform and you'll hear more in a few months time."

I think this may have been misunderstood.  The issue is that we can't
simply change the bylaws willy-nilly, but we need to be very careful
legally to do things the right way.  Before we can make practical steps
forward, we need to consult with lawyers with specific expertise in
Florida non-profit law to get a better understanding of the realistic
options which are open to us.

> Why not publish most discussions verbatim with bits taken away that are
> sensitive and a short explanation of what has been left out.

I see no problem with this.

> And let me state once more, what actually should go without saying,
> that this is not a personal attack on you or Jimmy or anyone, as I think
> most highly of you all.

And I personally very much appreciate it.  Hard and thoughtful questions
are what will keep this organization on track in the long run.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-L Mailing List Members - What I Don't Like
	About Wikipedia

body:
Lester, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhou_Dynasty#Removed_Lester_DK_Chow_info

for some feedback.

-Andrew

On 8/18/05, Lester D.K. Chow and Associates <lchow at lava.net> wrote:
> I am a Chinese-American of the third generation.  I worked as a political
> negotiator, during the Iraq War in 1990.  My college background is four
> years of college as a business management major and history minor.  My
> family are very prominent Chinese people as my second cousin is China's
> renowned Premier Zhou Enlai.  I am a member of China's Imperial family and
> a self-taught cultural expert on China and the Middle East.
>
> I wrote additions to the topics of "Eber," "Joktan," and the "Zhou
> Dynasty."  My family's dynasty of which I am a qualified expert.  In
> history, there are conflicting interpretations as to events and dates.  I
> think that it is wrong to only allow one view to dominate and to not
> publish all valid views.  Somehow, your editors erased what I had
> republished about two or three hours ago (my time, at this writing, is
> August 17, 2005, 11:10 p.m.).  Then, too, I think that it is wrong for
> people (the general public) to erase all of the hard work and time that you
> have put into your article and to continually erase it every time you post.
>
> Can anything be done about this?
>
> Yours,
>
> Lester D.K. Chow
> lchow at lava.net
>
> Ps: I own the copyright to the information that I posted, yet my articles
> were deleted and I am not sure who did it!
>
>


body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> In general, I am also opposed to people paying for articles. I think that
> this will be the first step toward a breakdown of a volunteer community. Imagine
>  this scenario. If Danny is getting paid to translate or write articles,
> maybe I  should too. Maybe I wont even write an article until I get paid for it.

I worry about this as well, but I do think it is worthwhile for us to
have some experiments in seeding the work in languages where we
currently have next to nothing.  I do worry about the possibility of
such work preventing or inhibiting the formation of a genuine community,
so I'm cautious about it.

I don't think that work done for money in Bambara Wikipedia will cause
anyone in English wikipedia to think "No fair, someone in Mali is making
$10 a week writing wikipedia articles, where is my money?"

--Jimbo


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> I normally try to avoid "me too" posts, but I feel I should speak up to
> say that I agree with virtually everything Erik Zachte wrote, and thank
> him immensely for taking the time to compose that thoughtful message.
>
> I want to add some thoughts on the transparency issue he raised. A very
> critical part of managing any organization, especially one as committed
> to ideals of openness as Wikimedia, is reporting back to everyone about
> your activities. Given the transparency of most actions on a wiki,
> producing such reports is especially important for off-wiki activity.
>
> In particular this applies to the board, the officers (including those
> of local chapters), and the developers. I trust all of these people and
> the processes by which they were chosen, but we still need to hear from
> all of them regularly about their work. The proliferation of non-public
> mailing lists and wikis adds to the concern. I understand that some
> matters cannot be announced at the outset, and that deliberation and
> delay may allow for a more thorough report. But on the other hand,
> disappearing behind closed doors, not to be heard from again, is not an
> acceptable option.
>
> With the developers this is a longstanding problem, and they struggle
> constantly with more pressing issues, like a simple lack of manpower
> (womanpower would certainly do as well if we can recruit some female
> developers). I'm guessing we could use three or four times as many
> developers before we'd have enough of them to spare one to spend much
> time reporting. I think most people are willing to give a lot of slack
> here as long as the sites keep running.
>
> For the rest, because the issues they deal with are more frequently
> "political", people will be more uncomfortable with a lack of
> transparency. I see some effort to deal with this, but I'm afraid that
> even among those of us who are deeply interested enough to be on this
> list, people frequently feel out of the loop on issues of concern to
> them. I have tried to contribute a little myself toward more thorough
> reporting (and hope to help more in the future), but the overall task is
> a full-time job and I already have one of those.
>
> Keeping people informed is essential to sustaining trust, and makes a
> tremendous difference in whether they will accept the decisions you make.
>
> --Michael Snow

Right

Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
situation, and make suggestions to improve.

Michael is mentionning that "with the developers, they struggle
constantly with more pressing issues". And that "we could use three or
four times as many developers".

Well, this is also one of our problems. We are also struggling with more
pressing issues. We would also benefit of help, because we also lack
wo-man power. And as you mention, taking care of communication could
also be a full-time job and aside from Jimbo, both Angela and I also
have one of those.

I have a problem with the equation

board : amount of time spent answering personal mails + amount of time
spend on OTRS + amount of time spent writing board meeting reports +
amount of time spent writing to this list + amount of time spent on
setting up a wikimedia foundation website + amount of time spent writing
Quarto

With

Wikipedians : we are not informed.

It does not fit :-)

So my questions are

* exactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ? Please cite
some examples of issues where we have been failing ? Was the information
missing related to legal issues ? To partnership ? To budget ?

* please cite some examples of how we could inform you. Please not "I
want to be more informed", but HOW, WHERE, WHEN and under WHICH form.

Example : some french editors complained during the year that I did not
inform them enough on the village pump. But there are more than 300
projects. Do you expect us to go ourselves to possibly 50 of the biggest
ones to inform people ? It is just impossible. So, is the solution to
find human relays *appointed* to do that, or should we make a big
communication campaign to explain to people where to go ? I intend to
try to write a FAQ on the Foundation website, do you think it can help ?
Will it if no one goes there to read it ?
The Quarto takes a lot of time and is distributing information very
slowly. But at least, it ensure translation in major languages. Do you
think we need to add an intermediate level (such as a weekly or a monthly ?)

Since you make the sign post, it may be that you feel like suggesting
the Foundation make a sign post itself. But then, you need to help us
find sustainable ways to do it. Because as you mentionned it, it takes a
LOT of time. I know I can not alone add in my own timetable the
necessarily time to do 4-5 articles per week alone. Not without help.
Not in a language which is not my mother language. And as you might very
well be aware yourself, most articles do not come all by themselves.
Most will be written by yourself.
In the case of Quarto, I know we have to hunt for authors each time, or
write ourselves.

* are you yourself ready to help distribute the information ? How many
times did you yourself copied an information mentionned on that list on
your own village pump ? How many times did you help translate the
foundation website or the Quarto ? How many times did you yourself
provide us information that might be useful ?

It is good to point out to a problem, but it is even better to try to
help find some solutions. I also think that most of the time, when you
think "I am not informed", it is only that you heard nothing, so feel
some stuff is going undersground and you are kept away of it. But most
of the time, it is that there is just nothing very special to report.

What are my memories of the big stuff of the past two months ?
Well, from the financial perspective
	* trying to find ways so that Mav get hand on all financial papers, so
that we can get a decent budget to work on.
	* setting  up the budget (this has been published here)
	* starting a fundraising (this is openly discussed here)
Grant perspective
	* major points reported here in the board report
	* discussion of the european grant by chapters coordinated by Danny
(reported here)
Technical perspective
	* yahoo servers soon to be on (it was reported here)
	* the recent downtime (asked to developers to explain why to the
community, no report was done here. Well, I am not the police.
Business perspective
	* mostly reported in the board meeting
Wikimania
	* took us most of the past 2 months in truth. Anyone could report on
what happened. Pictures are on Flickr. Presentations available as well.
	* incidently, sponsorship by OSI was announced here.
Officers and co
	* I announced myself we were heading toward having a new officer and
new mailing list (prematuraly dead in the server crash)
	* new chapters (pl, announced here)
Quarto
	* no quarto because Sj has been very very busy with Wikimania, and
myself quite busy with my presentation and my real life and all related
issues.
Legal considerations
	* well, since you are on the legal list, do you think anything needs
reporting here ? I do not.

On which topics do you think things are missing ?

Do you guys realise that the Foundation is basically 10 people while the
editors are basically thousands ???? In any reasonable organisation,
there would already be a PR person whose job is 100% communication work.
We do not have this, but any of you can help. So, it would be nice that
you just explain where things are failing exactly, where energy should
be put and best that you yourself help.

-------

Now, since I said it would be nice to explain exactly where things are
failing, please also consider MY own perspective.

Yesterday, several people here, and on irc said
"the german money is not spent. It should be. Why is it not ?"

Some german answer
"how can we make a budget if the foundation
isn't able or willing to work with us on reasonable ways to spend the
money?
We asked several times, what is needed and
never got an answer. the answer "give us the money" is not appropriate"

With my perception
look at my mail
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003915.html

Look at answers given to it.
There are none whatsoever.
 From my perspective, not only did I lose time writting the mail, but I
do not have the slightest beginning of more information. *I* also feel
not informed at all.

So... what will I do ? Probably nothing :-)

Similarly, I would love that officers get used to making a weekly or
monthly reporting. A summary of all stuff taking care of (or not taking
care of) during a certain amount of time. It would both inform us and
make it easier to inform you. But again, I am not their boss and if they
do not feel like doing it... I only know these are some of the stuff we
did in firms I have been working in, and that help.

Anthere


subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow


from_name: Dori

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO

body:
Could everyone take a breath or two and think before replying with
more inflamatory messages? I don't think it's helping anyone, let
alone the foundation or the public at large, and this is starting to
sound like a soap opera.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO


body:
Your comments below have nothing to do with what you said earlier. I
appreciate the value of translation, and actually worked as a professional
translator for twenty years. This is not about translation. You suggested  companies
pay the Foundation or (individuals) to translate articles about them.  Once
money changes hands over content, the question becomes whether the  Foundation or
the translator has a responsibility to ensure that the content is
satisfactory to that client. The exchange of money can be viewed as a  contractual
agreement of sorts. Assuming we do that, it is the corporation that  determines the
content of the article, not the community. It is clear that this  is a
violation of NPOV.

In general, I am also opposed to people paying for articles. I think that
this will be the first step toward a breakdown of a volunteer community. Imagine
 this scenario. If Danny is getting paid to translate or write articles,
maybe I  should too. Maybe I wont even write an article until I get paid for it.

In just four and a half years, we have been highly successful because we  are
a volunteer organization devoted to creating free content--not a
translator's bulletin board. What you and Gerard are proposing will harm the  volunteer
spirit of the project by creating unnecessary hierarchies within it of  paid
writers and volunteers. This is completely against everything we have  succeeded
in doing so far.

Danny

In a message dated 8/18/2005 8:27:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sabine_cretella at yahoo.it writes:

>If a  company pays us to write or  feature an article,
>does that mean  that we are beholden to them to provide their  POV as well?
>
no - since whoever wants such a translation knows that the article  is
already npov - so he wants this content translated and not re-written  to
his/her favour

>What
>about if a political or  religious group tries to do the same  thing?
>
see above: any  article for wikipedia is there to be improved - also the
translated ones  ...

>To what
>degree will corporate or other moneys be used  as leverage  against NPOV.
>
>I am confident that the  community will reject this idea.
>
>
well ... see: if  there is a translated article and you don't even know
about this and then  it is uploaded it is treated like any contribution -
people will have a  look at it and say it is fine or modify it


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

body:
On 8/18/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Puddl Duk wrote:
>
> >>* exactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ? Please cite
> >>some examples of issues where we have been failing ? Was the information
> >>missing related to legal issues ? To partnership ? To budget ?
> >
> >
> >
> > This is an amazing statement, how can we ask for information that is
> seceret
> > and that we don't know about?
>
> True. Good point.
>
> I have been thinking of one secret information you might not be aware
> of, which I think I can disclose to you.
> Please bend over so that I can say it very softly and privately in your
> ear (in case you are a tall guy for I am a small size person). Do not
> repeat please.
>
> <small>We have some private mailing lists or channels to discuss
> quietly, 'cause there are a couple of unpleasant individuals on this
> mailing list, whose mails are seemingly limited to criticizing and
> adding fire on the oil. And we dare not kicking them of the list. I
> know, we are weak...</small>
>
> I'll let Angela answer next points that might concern you.
>
> Ant

I'm sorry you've answered this way, and hope my preception that you are
mocking me or my question is wrong. It was an honest question not intended
to criticise or throw oil on the fire.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Please bend over so that I can say it very softly and privately in

"Please lower your head to my level" would have been a better turn of
phrase. :)

> <small>We have some private mailing lists or channels to discuss
> quietly, 'cause there are a couple of unpleasant individuals on
> this
> mailing list, whose mails are seemingly limited to criticizing and
> adding fire on the oil. And we dare not kicking them of the list. I
> know, we are weak...</small>

Ant, this statement, while true I am sure, does nothing to instill
confidence. In fact, it heightens an atmosphere of suspicion which
already seems to exist.

The reason people are on this mailing list is that they really care
about wikipedia. Some are better in english than others; and some are
more politically astute than others. I personally welcome all
comments, including the criticizing and adding oil to the fire.
Sometimes, that's what it takes to get the ball rolling. Also, in
some cultures and for some people individually, not speaking is a
form of assent, and speaking is reserved for pointing out problems.
This may make some people seem to only criticize, when in fact they
fully support and are involved.

If one or more individuals are seriously getting in the way of
business getting done, let the rest of us know. And let them know.
But, please, be diplomatic.

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Information flow


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Angela <beesley at ...> writes:

> Is another mailing list actually going to solve this? Are people going
> to accept that there is one place for this information? What about
> those who don't want to be on a mailing list and feel this information
> should be on the wiki? Where are translations going to occur? If the
> list is aimed to be low-traffic, sending dozens of translations every
> time something is posted isn't going to be too popular. If the aim is
> to get information out in a timely way, waiting until a message is
> translated won't really help to meet that requirement. If every
> language has a separate announcements list, it won't help to meet the
> goal of having one central point of information.

You make it to complicated.

I think another mailings list *if* it is used correctly can solve this. An
mailing list is low tech.  Easy to use. If you make it complicated the small
change that it actually will happen is even smaller.

If the people who are always looking at the technical IRC channels and the
other raw sources of information about the state of Wikimedia technical are
willing to send an email to an central point then the others can take it over.
It would be a big thing if the would be willing to do that.

You inform the other mailing lists about this announce list, and so far the
still exist the ambassadors. And then it is for every wiki to see there is an
member of there community to watch that list and relay it to there community
and translate it, put it on whatever place the like on there wiki.

I try to do this for my home-wiki. The other wiki's must take there
responsibility. If you want the info, there is the list for it. If you do not
read it do not complain about it.

> I'm not saying I oppose the idea. I don't, and I think something like
> this is very much needed. I'm just concerned the solution isn't as
> easy as simply creating a new mailing list.
>
> Angela.

It could be a deluxe webbased system with default translated scripts and auto-
posting on many pages on many wiki's by a bot. But a plain mailing list where
wikipedians can get this info and inform there home-wiki about it will do.

Greetings,
Walter


from_name: Felipe Pablos

subject: [Wikitech-l] Documentation for developers

body:
We are trying to develope one extension for mediawiki,  but the
information about how mediawiki works is very poor. We would be grateful
if someone provide us the documentation necesary to begin to understand
mediawiki and to begin to develope

thank you very much

Felipe Pablos


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objectionable material

body:
Skyring wrote:

>I appreciate both positions, but in the meantime, we live in the real
>world where some parents and teachers and clergymen are going to apply
>pressure to stop their children or students or congregations from
>using an online encyclopedia that contains material that they consider
>objectionable, regardless of how sensitively it is presented or how
>much we might wish for there to be no censorship at all.
>
>
I really don't think that the best way to deal with closed-mindedness
and dogmatism is to surrender to it. Of course, that carries its own
special risk, because we might end up being dogmatic in our response.
They key here, it seems, is to emphasize the Wiki philosophy of good
faith, openness, and /respect/ that all people have it in them to be
mature and responsible /without /having someone to tell them what they
can and can't know and what they can and can't look at.

Still, some people just can't be reasoned with. Some people will object
to any site on the internet that isn't dedicated to our Lord and Savior.
Others will be disgusted that we fairly consider perspectives on
intelligent design, and write us off as hacks. That these people will
boycott Wikipedia, I think, is unfortunate, but not something we need to
be concerning ourselves with.

>These sort of people tend to be firm in their convictions and vocal in
>presenting their opinions, and if there is a picture of autofellatio
>or a gigantic anus in WP, then they will find it and use it against
>us. I rather think that they will not be swayed by the arguments noted
>above. Just how tasteful and educational is a picture of a naked guy
>sucking himself? It's hardly Michaelangelo's David, is it?
>
No it isn't, and we do have to draw the line somewhere. Where that line
is drawn right now is loosely analagous to a "rational basis" review; if
the reviewer can think of some possible legitimate use for the image, we
keep it. Only images that have no possible encyclopedic usefulness (such
as shock images, blatant pornography, and nonsense) get deleted.
Realistically, I don't see anything wrong with that paradigm. We can't
let the fears and dogmas of the most extreme and conservative people in
society become our own fears and dogmas, too.

- Ryan


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow

body:
On 8/18/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

I [snipped] this post, but on the whole I agree with every single
question asked and point made.

> * exactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ? Please cite
> some examples of issues where we have been failing ? Was the information
> missing related to legal issues ? To partnership ? To budget ?

> * please cite some examples of how we could inform you. Please not "I
> want to be more informed", but HOW, WHERE, WHEN and under WHICH form.

Excellent questions. I would also like to know where the information
is lacking. This is, at least, the best way to start improving.

> Do you guys realise that the Foundation is basically 10 people while the
> editors are basically thousands ???? In any reasonable organisation,
> there would already be a PR person whose job is 100% communication work.
> We do not have this, but any of you can help. So, it would be nice that
> you just explain where things are failing exactly, where energy should
> be put and best that you yourself help.

And yes again. We have come to a point where all of those involved in
the organisation simply do not have the time, or even the skills, to
have an effective communication policy, and where the "end users" are
asking for more and more information. Having someone do that job on a
full-time basis is the least we could ask for.

[snip]

> We asked several times, what is needed and
> never got an answer. the answer "give us the money" is not appropriate"
> With my perception
> look at my mail
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003915.html
> Look at answers given to it.
> There are none whatsoever.
>  From my perspective, not only did I lose time writting the mail, but I
> do not have the slightest beginning of more information. *I* also feel
> not informed at all.

I might be stepping on some toes here, but I found your e-mail very
informative, and it was, as I understand it, actually answering the
question that was being asked, ie. "what could the Foundation need
that we could look into to see its feasibility". However, please, you
wrote it yesterday, give people a chance to look at the proposals you
made and give you an intelligent answer.
A "thanx for these ideas, we'll be looking into them" certainly would
have been appropriate, but information can also take time to register,
please give at least 24 hours before saying no-one answers.

Apart from that little thing, I am as curious as you are to see what
information is lacking and will definitely welcome ideas on how to
improve it.

Best,

Delphine
--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
Regardless of where a certain text comes from. It's copyrighted as
soon as the author puts it on paper in a tangible form. Some
governments give up their copyrights over this material, but I think
anything that can be traced to a written source that's not
specifically released under the GFDL or released into the PD by it's
author is off limits to Wikipedia regardless where it comes from.

--Mgm

On 8/18/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> > There are problems with that:
> > 1) I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
> > distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to
> > Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block
> > Iran from its readership.
> > 2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue
> > the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Well, although I agree with you about the ultimate point here (we should
> not violate Iranian copyrights, even if it is legal to do so in the US),
> I don't find these two arguments to be the most compelling.
>
> First, if we are breaking Iranian censorship laws, then so be it.  (I
> have no idea, actually, but I would imagine that we are.)   Merely
> "breaking Iranian law" isn't particularly worrisome.
>
> Second, I think the point is that such use would be legal in the US, and
> if so, I don't see that Iranians would have much of a way to sue us,
> except perhaps in Iran, which would be more or less pointless.
>
> I think the most compelling argument is that we want to encourage broad
> re-use, including in Iran, and if Iranian copyright laws are more or
> less as sensible as the laws of other places, then we should follow
> those laws, regardless of ongoing disputes between the US and Iran which
> may prevent an actual treaty.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Dan Grey

subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow

body:
On 18/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
> situation, and make suggestions to improve.
>
> Michael is mentionning that "with the developers, they struggle
> constantly with more pressing issues". And that "we could use three or
> four times as many developers".

Hackers rarely communicate outside of themselves. Fact of life in that
arena. However, the server log:

http://wp.wikidev.net/Server_admin_log

isn't too bad.

>
> I have a problem with the equation
>
> board : amount of time spent answering personal mails + amount of time
> spend on OTRS + amount of time spent writing board meeting reports +
> amount of time spent writing to this list + amount of time spent on
> setting up a wikimedia foundation website + amount of time spent writing
> Quarto
>
> With
>
> Wikipedians : we are not informed.
>
> It does not fit :-)
>
>
> So my questions are
>
> * exactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ?

Everything. The WMF wiki is a shambles and so are the related meta pages.

I suspect a lot of the information people want *is* actually out
there, it's just very hard to find.

> * please cite some examples of how we could inform you. Please not "I
> want to be more informed", but HOW, WHERE, WHEN and under WHICH form.

1. Start the announce-l list, and use it
2. Make the WMF wiki useful
3. I understand that there is now code to transclude templates between
wikis. This would make "broadcasting" info to individual wikis's
village pumps easy, if it were to be enabled. This would be
*extremely* powerful.
4. Y'know, a "board and officers" blog would be very useful. Perhaps
the blogging extension could be turned on on the WMF wiki.

As someone who is a) disappointed with the foundation and it's lack of
openess, real or percieved, and b) is a whizz with wikis and how to
make them easy-to-follow, I would be very happy to sort out the WMF
wiki.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] Information flow


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objectionable material

body:
"Enlarged"?  Hmm, perhaps not quite the word you wanted...

:-)

Stan

Theo Clarke wrote:

>Hi Theresa
>
>I feel enlarged by your constructive post but the real reason for this email is to thank you for my laughter at "apart from it's yucky".
>
>Bless you!
>
>Theo
>
>
>> It's not art though. It's educational in the sense that is shows
>> what
>> autofellatio is in the same way as a photo of a microscope shows
>> what
>> a microscope is. It doesn't harm anyone. it doesn't show something
>> will give people nightmares . It doesn't exploit anyone or show
>> someone being harmed and it doesn't depict an unsafe act. I wonder
>> what people's objection's to it might be (apart from it's yucky).
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:03:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com writes:

However,  your assertion that we are doing a great job for all people on
this planet  is very debatable. We have little or no content for many
languages and I  would think it a fallacy to reject paying for content in
languages like  Bambara or Ossetian out of hand just because we can get
content in  languages like English, Dutch or Plattd??tsch. The defenition
of Wikipedia  is: *"Wikipedia* is a project to build free encyclopedias
in all languages  of the world based on a neutral point of view."
Which is why I have been active in my capacity as grants coordinator to
speak to the relevant parties (Guaka, for instance) to figure out ways to  promote
articles in those languages. In fact, Gerard, much of the Africa  scholarship
project idea was mine. I would not compare fostering languages with  Bambara
to helping individuals in affluent countries promote their personal  websites.

On
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia it does not say that we will
always be a volunteer organisation. If anything, we are slowly getting
more professionals in to make sure that what we do will grow and
prosper.
Yes, we need professionals, in organizational capacities. We do not need
professionals to write articles. In fact, our strength is that we do not rely on
professionals to do that.

The  discussion on paying for content has been going on for
quite some time.  Many people are really happy that there is some
movement in getting  content in languages like Bambara or Ossetian. In my
opinion, it makes  more sense to spend money on Bambara than on
Plattd??tsch. Research on  languages like Bambara are comparatively so
underfunded.

See my comments above. This is very different from paying for content by
corporations or large groups for promotional purposes. My track record proves
that I support one, if not the other.

Danny