body:
Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your
discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia
(and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run,
*far* more money than ever before:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People,
charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few
individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in
the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is
responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is
a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons
of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by
offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.

The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential
donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient
support for Wikimedia.

Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of
Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery
slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in
publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser
comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student
Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the
world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I
have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even
if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely
to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is
diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.

The other side to public matching is encouragement of community
donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia,
and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have
twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually
amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more
tangible.

But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you
an apology.

David

James Hare wrote:
> We need to abandon the method of
> let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as
> possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn
> advertisalicious.
>
> We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be
> interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser
> or the UN.
>
> If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money.
> That's pathetic.
>
> "It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's
> not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
>
> I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year
> contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
> cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
> mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
>
> Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
>
> On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
>> further endeavours!
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>>> I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
>>>
>>> I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
>>> people like me, who have been on the project for many
>>> years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
>>> about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
>>> whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
>>> as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
>>> who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
>>> as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
>>> (and others involved) that the values of the community
>>> *do* have a substantial number of people who will never
>>> accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
>>> comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
>>> understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
>>> addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
>>> must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
>>> to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
>>> with the other.
>>>
>>> I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
>>> has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
>>> stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
>>> Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
>>> accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
>>> the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>>>
>>> If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
>>> the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
>>>
>>> It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
>>> with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
>>> I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
>>> big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
>>> through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
>>>
>>> Goodbye.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Pat Gunn
>>> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
>>> http://dachte.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/61ea68b4/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] This is not an Advertisement @ pgunn

body:
For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication,
because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.

Yes David Strauss, I understand the financial cost -- it takes more money
than I will probably ever have at once. To this effect I've donated hundreds
of dollars to Wikimedia to help it keep afloat.

As Greg Maxwell addressed, advertisers seldom comment on the content. That's
great! Even *if* we tell them to go away, we'll just find new advertisers
'cause we're top 20, baby!

As long as Wikimedia stays devoted to its true goals, I will be content.
Advertising is not that pleasant; maybe it'll be necessary. Before we have
to resort to that, we have to find something better. To that note, Greg,
when will that list of images be finished?

On 1/2/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>
> Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your
> discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia
> (and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run,
> *far* more money than ever before:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for
>
> Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People,
> charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few
> individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in
> the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is
> responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is
> a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons
> of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by
> offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.
>
> The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential
> donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient
> support for Wikimedia.
>
> Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of
> Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery
> slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in
> publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser
> comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student
> Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the
> world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I
> have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even
> if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely
> to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is
> diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.
>
> The other side to public matching is encouragement of community
> donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia,
> and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have
> twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually
> amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more
> tangible.
>
> But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you
> an apology.
>
> David
>
> James Hare wrote:
> > We need to abandon the method of
> > let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon
> as
> > possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn
> > advertisalicious.
> >
> > We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not
> be
> > interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the
> fundraiser
> > or the UN.
> >
> > If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of
> money.
> > That's pathetic.
> >
> > "It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words...
> it's
> > not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
> >
> > I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a
> 1,000,000,000-year
> > contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
> > cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
> > mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
> >
> > Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
> >
> > On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
> >> further endeavours!
> >>
> >> Waerth
> >>
> >>> I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
> >>>
> >>> I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
> >>> people like me, who have been on the project for many
> >>> years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
> >>> about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
> >>> whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
> >>> as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
> >>> who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
> >>> as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
> >>> (and others involved) that the values of the community
> >>> *do* have a substantial number of people who will never
> >>> accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
> >>> comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
> >>> understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
> >>> addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
> >>> must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
> >>> to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
> >>> with the other.
> >>>
> >>> I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
> >>> has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
> >>> stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
> >>> Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
> >>> accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
> >>> the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
> >>>
> >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
> >>>
> >>> If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
> >>> the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
> >>>
> >>> It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
> >>> with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
> >>> I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
> >>> big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
> >>> through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
> >>>
> >>> Goodbye.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Pat Gunn
> >>> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
> >>> http://dachte.org
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
I'm sorry that Pat left, and have told him so; despite our differences
in philosophy I considered him to be a thoughtful person and an asset
to the project.

I'm thankful in particular to Brion, David, and many others who have
posted and elaborated on the position so that I do not have to. I do
believe in free content, not anti-commercial content; I don't think an
ad-supported project is desirable or something I would support, but
not for anticommercialism. I am happy for the writing I have
contributed to be used for any purpose, so long as it remains free;
that's a really powerful idea, and now one that I am happy to support
at an organizational level.

Though I speak only for myself, I think it is fair to say that the
Board knew there would be some people, even many people, upset and
disappointed with the decision; most of us now come from within the
community and are aware of how communities will react even if a call
for community comment does not happen every time. Sometimes doing what
you think is the best decision, considering all the factors, means
making some people unhappy with you.

It's impossible to do anything new and still please everyone all of
the time; changing anything usually means upsetting something that
someone else thought was important, maybe even relied on. It's our
responsibility to keep the projects running according to our stated
goals. Which includes raising enough money to keep the data flowing
and the lights on, and making sure that what we do doesn't conflict
with putting together free-content reference works.

Soliciting matching donations is a popular way of encouraging
contributions from both corporate and individual sources, and one that
we have just now started to use. I believe that thanking our matching
donors is an appropriate expression; while we certainly appreciate the
quiet generosity of our anonymous donor, a gift does not need to be
anonymous to be worth recognition. It is expected courtesy to publicly
acknowledge such large gifts, and doing so by means of a logo or a
namedrop does not change its nature; in 2005 we even thanked Yahoo!
for their donation with a press release trumpeting it.

In addition, the sitenotice drew enough attention to the pledge to
match and the banner that it encouraged more people to donate, soundly
beating the donation totals of the immediately surrounding days. (Not
counting the large entry from our anonymous friend the day before,
well over double.) And now the logo is gone; when the fund drive is
over the banner will be gone also, and we will be left exactly as we
were, with the freedom and neutrality of the projects unharmed. And
that is what I am concerned about.

We could have communicated the decision better. Organization of the
fundraiser has been somewhat shaky, was held back by a few surprise
difficulties, and could certainly be improved; lessons learned for
next time.

Just so this isn't forgotten in the midst of all the argument: thank
you to all of the other donors, also. I've read most of the comments
in the live list (OK, I skipped past the spammy ones), and am
continually amazed by how many people think this is a really fantastic
project worth pouring their time and money into.

Cheers and happy new year.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


body:
That's too good an apology! I forgiveth thee.

On 1/2/07, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Hare wrote:
> > For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication,
> > because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
>
> I will happily apologize for the poor communication; the fundraiser has
> been run a bit chaotically, with lots of last-minute jumps and hurdles
> and our communication and planning on the visible parts (such as the
> site notice) have indeed been *abysmal*.
>
> The notices for instance ought to have been prepared and translated a
> week or two before they went up, which would have given a lot more time
> for people to see what sort of stuff was actually going to be going up.
>
> A proper, functioning fundraising committee involving the community
> would also be super. That was supposed to happen, but apparently things
> fell apart...
>
> I really, really want us to do better on this next time.
>
> - -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFmhH0wRnhpk1wk44RApFqAJ9ueIFMiK5xTYpPkojayrRHZvIy8QCfXawg
> OP6DsnCpnqTkc/deVGTVAAQ=
> =jpqn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: David Strauss

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would
> never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects.

Even if someone said that at one time (certainly in an unofficial
capacity), Wikimedia does not operate off precedent; it operates to
achieve free knowledge. And sometimes, the circumstances for doing that
change.

However, going way back thorough Wikipedia's history, it's evident that
there's always been speculation about the need for sponsorship. Some
messages were vague, alluding to expected funding problems. Some were
more explicit, stating, "Someday, there will be advertising on
Wikipedia."* Thankfully, that's not the case.

But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.

David

* See:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales/Advertising_on_Wikipedia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070102/7f05fee2/attachment.pgp


body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would
> never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects.

Even if someone said that at one time (certainly in an unofficial
capacity), Wikimedia does not operate off precedent; it operates to
achieve free knowledge. And sometimes, the circumstances for doing that
change.

However, going way back thorough Wikipedia's history, it's evident that
there's always been speculation about the need for sponsorship. Some
messages were vague, alluding to expected funding problems. Some were
more explicit, stating, "Someday, there will be advertising on
Wikipedia."* Thankfully, that's not the case.

But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.

David

* See:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales/Advertising_on_Wikipedia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070102/7f05fee2/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would
> never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects.

Even if someone said that at one time (certainly in an unofficial
capacity), Wikimedia does not operate off precedent; it operates to
achieve free knowledge. And sometimes, the circumstances for doing that
change.

However, going way back thorough Wikipedia's history, it's evident that
there's always been speculation about the need for sponsorship. Some
messages were vague, alluding to expected funding problems. Some were
more explicit, stating, "Someday, there will be advertising on
Wikipedia."* Thankfully, that's not the case.

But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.

David

* See:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales/Advertising_on_Wikipedia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/7f05fee2/attachment.pgp>


body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would
> never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects.

Even if someone said that at one time (certainly in an unofficial
capacity), Wikimedia does not operate off precedent; it operates to
achieve free knowledge. And sometimes, the circumstances for doing that
change.

However, going way back thorough Wikipedia's history, it's evident that
there's always been speculation about the need for sponsorship. Some
messages were vague, alluding to expected funding problems. Some were
more explicit, stating, "Someday, there will be advertising on
Wikipedia."* Thankfully, that's not the case.

But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.

David

* See:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales/Advertising_on_Wikipedia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/7f05fee2/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Illegal IP blocking on the Dutch wikipedia

body:
>
>ps the case of thailand and waerth specifically is now being discussed at
>the dutch list, and i do hope we find a solution soon
>
>
Which Dutch list? This should be a public discussion.

Waerth


body:
It is very nice to see people discussing about a situation which they do
not know off because they have never confronted it. This will lead to
some rosy coloured decisions based on what is possible in the west. Not
on what is possible in the rest of the world. Also Gerard you are not a
mod and still on the nl-mods list! Which is a very strange situation.
These kind of discussions involve all of the nl. community. Andre Engels
who is not on that list is interested in that discussion as well. But he
is not able to contribute. Is this the way we go on nl: ? The mods get
to decide our future for us?

And as you know I refuse to actively work on content. Only the bombings
were an exception for me. But now if I have to go through so much
trouble to do something, I am not a vandal remember, I might as well do
nothing.

Waerth

>Hoi,
>Well you know as well as I do that on the Dutch moderator mailing list often
>discussions are held that do not really need to be confidential or limited
>to the Dutch moderators. Then again by not having some discussions in the
>open, often a lot less angry words are said. This in turn as you know and
>agree helps to concentrate on what is most important.. the one thing you
>sadly cannot be part of at the moment.. working on content.
>Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>On 1/1/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>>ps the case of thailand and waerth specifically is now being discussed at
>>>the dutch list, and i do hope we find a solution soon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Which Dutch list? This should be a public discussion.
>>
>>Waerth
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal on references

body:
One of the most common complaints about the <ref>...</ref>
feature is how it disrupts the line spacing.  Have we tried not
raising the reference numbers at all?  It seems to me that
judicious use of font size and color would work ok even
when the reference numbers were sitting on the basline.
Then the line-spacing problem would go away.

Zero.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ephemeral nature of web pages - a silly idea?

body:
We allow web pages as sources under some reliability
criteria, even though the web page might change or go
away.  We choose to live with this problem as a lesser
evil than banning web sources altogether.  But, I was
wondering: could Wikipedia not keep its own archive of
web pages used as sources?  Or some such web pages?
This is a minimally thought out proposal as you can tell!

Zero.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
That is because I stay who I am and refuse to become a rose speckled
glasses person who talks very politically correct. It is the problem of
other people. Not mine. If people want me to someone I am not they can
wait untill the sun goes supernova.

My good ideas nor my prolific writing haven't changed. What has changed
is that I have become even more of a minority then I was. Imho wikimedia
is drowning in people wo are PC and without experience outside of the
western world. Which means that either nothing gets done, or decisions
are made like on en:wikipedia were they discriminate now.

Waerth

>Hoi Walter,
>For the record I am not on the nl-mods list.
>
>I do value your contributions. It is sad to me that from a great prolific
>writer with a huge standing, you are now someone who is completely sidelined
>and out of the picture.
>
>Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
>On 1/1/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very nice to see people discussing about a situation which they do
>>not know off because they have never confronted it. This will lead to
>>some rosy coloured decisions based on what is possible in the west. Not
>>on what is possible in the rest of the world. Also Gerard you are not a
>>mod and still on the nl-mods list! Which is a very strange situation.
>>These kind of discussions involve all of the nl. community. Andre Engels
>>who is not on that list is interested in that discussion as well. But he
>>is not able to contribute. Is this the way we go on nl: ? The mods get
>>to decide our future for us?
>>


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the
infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter
debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the
very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what
it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are  doing.

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can  freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."

Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our decisions.  It is
inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can
freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of all
human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the works: we
have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")

That's our commitment.

As for what it doesn't say:
It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a
European language ..."
It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better."
It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out  more/buy it."
It does not say "That's what we did."

Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can
best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.

Danny


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
Danny Delivers!

On 1/2/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the
> infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the
> bitter
> debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to
> the
> very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but
> what
> it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we
> are  doing.
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can  freely share in
> the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
>
> Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our decisions.  It
> is
> inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can
> freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of
> all
> human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the works:
> we
> have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
>
> That's our commitment.
>
> As for what it doesn't say:
> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
> It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a
> European language ..."
> It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better."
> It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out  more/buy
> it."
> It does not say "That's what we did."
>
> Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can
> best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics


body:
Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring
charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially
crossing the line?

On 1/2/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/01/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>
> > But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
> > promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
> > Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.
>
>
> This is an example of violating expectations as opposed to violating
> policy. The former is actually more problematic, because policy rules
> are breakable and formable, but violating expectations is an
> "everything you knew about this world was wrong" moment. People feel
> the ground shifting under their feet, and they get much more upset.
> That's what's happening here, I think.
>
> (my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a
> press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate
> logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin
> Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up
> and to be ready for it ;-)
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Never mind the "officially," I was trying to allude to something else.
People who know will get the reference.

Good point, Habj.

On 1/2/07, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/1/2, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com>:
> > Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the
> sponsoring
> > charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that
> officially
> > crossing the line?
>
> I don't think anybody said "officially"? I do think that in most
> people's minds, though, the logo was the thing that made it look like
> an ad.
>
> /habj
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 02/01/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> That's our commitment.
>>
>> As for what it doesn't say:
>> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
>
> Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although
> we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why
> we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I
> believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.

It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is
incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals,
they're about means, too.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070102/bf91b3eb/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 02/01/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> That's our commitment.
>>
>> As for what it doesn't say:
>> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
>
> Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although
> we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why
> we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I
> believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.

It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is
incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals,
they're about means, too.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070102/bf91b3eb/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 02/01/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> That's our commitment.
>>
>> As for what it doesn't say:
>> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
>
> Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although
> we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why
> we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I
> believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.

It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is
incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals,
they're about means, too.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/bf91b3eb/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 02/01/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> That's our commitment.
>>
>> As for what it doesn't say:
>> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
>
> Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although
> we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why
> we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I
> believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.

It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is
incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals,
they're about means, too.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/bf91b3eb/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives

body:
Storing Wikipedia is not the problem:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Teun Spaans wrote:
> A number of people answered this call. A summary of ideas from the dutch pub:
> * save money on bandwith by symplfying html. - however, I checked and
> html seems already pretty lean.
> * Save discspace by deleting older versions of articles - probably
> contradicts GFDL.
> * Make lists of charities. Foundation board is probably already doing this.
> * There were a number of people who suggested running selected commercial ads.
> * Distributed storage - technically probably not yet feasible
> * Grid computing
> * Publish thematical information as commercial books
> * Sell dvds, either whole encyclopedia or thematical
> * Make deals with clones or block them
> * Same for news agencies
> * Make bio info available for pda's. A lot easier to carry around than
> field guides
> * Asks subsidies from UN, EU and individual states.
> * Be more selective in accepting articles
> * Much of what we have is fancruft, and it seems fairly popular. Move
> all fanstuff to a separate project, outside wikipedia. Call if
> fanpedia or something. Let this project be more liberal in its
> acceptance of media, and let this project accept advertisements. This
> could probably support all wiki projects.
> * If images cost to much bandwidth, put a limit of 3 images / article.
>
> teun
>
> On 12/29/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> Old Chinese proverb:
>>
>> "... no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it ..."
>>
>> mountain = foundation
>> wind = people whining.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Lots of people are yelling and shouting that the current vision and policy
>>> of the foundation is totally wrong. I would like to invite all these people
>>> and others to think about alternatives. We won't get rid of these ugly
>>> things (everybody agrees upon that, i guess) in the sitenotice without any
>>> serious alternatives. I already asked this in the Dutch Village Pump, I hope
>>> you will bring the question back to all your communities, to the places
>>> where is discussed about the sitenotice. I have myself troubles to come up
>>> with serious alternatives, so I hope you guys have one. And when you have
>>> one, then you can ideed start a discussion about which solution is better. I
>>> look forward to your ideas, and please keep the discussion about how bad the
>>> current solution is for other threads.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk / Eia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070102/8010ef06/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives

body:
Storing Wikipedia is not the problem:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Teun Spaans wrote:
> A number of people answered this call. A summary of ideas from the dutch pub:
> * save money on bandwith by symplfying html. - however, I checked and
> html seems already pretty lean.
> * Save discspace by deleting older versions of articles - probably
> contradicts GFDL.
> * Make lists of charities. Foundation board is probably already doing this.
> * There were a number of people who suggested running selected commercial ads.
> * Distributed storage - technically probably not yet feasible
> * Grid computing
> * Publish thematical information as commercial books
> * Sell dvds, either whole encyclopedia or thematical
> * Make deals with clones or block them
> * Same for news agencies
> * Make bio info available for pda's. A lot easier to carry around than
> field guides
> * Asks subsidies from UN, EU and individual states.
> * Be more selective in accepting articles
> * Much of what we have is fancruft, and it seems fairly popular. Move
> all fanstuff to a separate project, outside wikipedia. Call if
> fanpedia or something. Let this project be more liberal in its
> acceptance of media, and let this project accept advertisements. This
> could probably support all wiki projects.
> * If images cost to much bandwidth, put a limit of 3 images / article.
>
> teun
>
> On 12/29/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> Old Chinese proverb:
>>
>> "... no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it ..."
>>
>> mountain = foundation
>> wind = people whining.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Lots of people are yelling and shouting that the current vision and policy
>>> of the foundation is totally wrong. I would like to invite all these people
>>> and others to think about alternatives. We won't get rid of these ugly
>>> things (everybody agrees upon that, i guess) in the sitenotice without any
>>> serious alternatives. I already asked this in the Dutch Village Pump, I hope
>>> you will bring the question back to all your communities, to the places
>>> where is discussed about the sitenotice. I have myself troubles to come up
>>> with serious alternatives, so I hope you guys have one. And when you have
>>> one, then you can ideed start a discussion about which solution is better. I
>>> look forward to your ideas, and please keep the discussion about how bad the
>>> current solution is for other threads.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk / Eia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070102/8010ef06/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives

body:
Storing Wikipedia is not the problem:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Teun Spaans wrote:
> A number of people answered this call. A summary of ideas from the dutch pub:
> * save money on bandwith by symplfying html. - however, I checked and
> html seems already pretty lean.
> * Save discspace by deleting older versions of articles - probably
> contradicts GFDL.
> * Make lists of charities. Foundation board is probably already doing this.
> * There were a number of people who suggested running selected commercial ads.
> * Distributed storage - technically probably not yet feasible
> * Grid computing
> * Publish thematical information as commercial books
> * Sell dvds, either whole encyclopedia or thematical
> * Make deals with clones or block them
> * Same for news agencies
> * Make bio info available for pda's. A lot easier to carry around than
> field guides
> * Asks subsidies from UN, EU and individual states.
> * Be more selective in accepting articles
> * Much of what we have is fancruft, and it seems fairly popular. Move
> all fanstuff to a separate project, outside wikipedia. Call if
> fanpedia or something. Let this project be more liberal in its
> acceptance of media, and let this project accept advertisements. This
> could probably support all wiki projects.
> * If images cost to much bandwidth, put a limit of 3 images / article.
>
> teun
>
> On 12/29/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> Old Chinese proverb:
>>
>> "... no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it ..."
>>
>> mountain = foundation
>> wind = people whining.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Lots of people are yelling and shouting that the current vision and policy
>>> of the foundation is totally wrong. I would like to invite all these people
>>> and others to think about alternatives. We won't get rid of these ugly
>>> things (everybody agrees upon that, i guess) in the sitenotice without any
>>> serious alternatives. I already asked this in the Dutch Village Pump, I hope
>>> you will bring the question back to all your communities, to the places
>>> where is discussed about the sitenotice. I have myself troubles to come up
>>> with serious alternatives, so I hope you guys have one. And when you have
>>> one, then you can ideed start a discussion about which solution is better. I
>>> look forward to your ideas, and please keep the discussion about how bad the
>>> current solution is for other threads.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk / Eia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/8010ef06/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives

body:
Storing Wikipedia is not the problem:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Teun Spaans wrote:
> A number of people answered this call. A summary of ideas from the dutch pub:
> * save money on bandwith by symplfying html. - however, I checked and
> html seems already pretty lean.
> * Save discspace by deleting older versions of articles - probably
> contradicts GFDL.
> * Make lists of charities. Foundation board is probably already doing this.
> * There were a number of people who suggested running selected commercial ads.
> * Distributed storage - technically probably not yet feasible
> * Grid computing
> * Publish thematical information as commercial books
> * Sell dvds, either whole encyclopedia or thematical
> * Make deals with clones or block them
> * Same for news agencies
> * Make bio info available for pda's. A lot easier to carry around than
> field guides
> * Asks subsidies from UN, EU and individual states.
> * Be more selective in accepting articles
> * Much of what we have is fancruft, and it seems fairly popular. Move
> all fanstuff to a separate project, outside wikipedia. Call if
> fanpedia or something. Let this project be more liberal in its
> acceptance of media, and let this project accept advertisements. This
> could probably support all wiki projects.
> * If images cost to much bandwidth, put a limit of 3 images / article.
>
> teun
>
> On 12/29/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> Old Chinese proverb:
>>
>> "... no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it ..."
>>
>> mountain = foundation
>> wind = people whining.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Lots of people are yelling and shouting that the current vision and policy
>>> of the foundation is totally wrong. I would like to invite all these people
>>> and others to think about alternatives. We won't get rid of these ugly
>>> things (everybody agrees upon that, i guess) in the sitenotice without any
>>> serious alternatives. I already asked this in the Dutch Village Pump, I hope
>>> you will bring the question back to all your communities, to the places
>>> where is discussed about the sitenotice. I have myself troubles to come up
>>> with serious alternatives, so I hope you guys have one. And when you have
>>> one, then you can ideed start a discussion about which solution is better. I
>>> look forward to your ideas, and please keep the discussion about how bad the
>>> current solution is for other threads.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk / Eia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070102/8010ef06/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates per MoS?

body:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Christopher Thieme wrote:
> P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up
> these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt

My "favorite" is about how some policies don't seem subject to [[WP:IAR]]
because they explicitly state that nothing can override them, even consensus.
Which suggests either these policies need to be rewritten or IAR needs to be.
Attempting to get this fixed is like butting my head against a brick wall.


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/1/2, Kat Walsh <kwalsh at wikimedia.org>:

> In addition, the sitenotice drew enough attention to the pledge to
> match and the banner that it encouraged more people to donate, soundly
> beating the donation totals of the immediately surrounding days. (Not
> counting the large entry from our anonymous friend the day before,
> well over double.) And now the logo is gone; when the fund drive is
> over the banner will be gone also, and we will be left exactly as we
> were, with the freedom and neutrality of the projects unharmed. And
> that is what I am concerned about.
>

No, it won't go on exactly as before. Before it was said that there would
never be advertisements on Wikipedia projects. I did not see the necessity
for it, but I agreed with the policy, because people had made it clear that
would leave if that would ever happen - hell, the es: split happened for
nothing more than remarks that some people interpreted to mean that there
might be advertisements in the future. Now there HAVE been advertisements on
Wikipedia and the other projects. That surely is a different situation.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
On 1/2/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > On 02/01/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >> That's our commitment.
> >>
> >> As for what it doesn't say:
> >> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
> >
> > Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although
> > we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why
> > we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I
> > believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.
>
> It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is
> incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals,
> they're about means, too.
>
That's hardly a valid statement.


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] London pub gathering Tue 2-Jan-06 (that's tomorrow)

body:
On 1/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
> in London are most welcome. Chris Sherlock (Ta bu shi da yu),
> Brassratgirl and Austin Hair are in town as well. I'll be along around
> 6:30 or 7ish after work.

See you there.  :)

--
Abi


from_name: Teun Spaans

subject: [Foundation-l] Free Resources

body:
free email:
we could use a free email server, i think, to provide every long
standig wikipedian (> 1 year) with a free email forwarder or even
email account.

Especially when communicating with external agencies, for excample to
ask permission for the use of images, it might make a better
impression if written from a wikipedia email account.

As for the photos: commons can always use some more photos.

teun

On 1/2/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know if Wikimedia needs subdomains or email accounts, but the photos
> would be great!
>
> On 1/1/07, Asher Heimermann <resourcesofsheboygan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Resources of Sheboygan Commission said that they will donate free
> > resources to The Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> >   Some of the resources will be:
> >
> >   * Free subdomains
> >   * Free email
> >   * Free photos
> >
> >   The Resources of Sheboygan Commission said that they will pay the $500
> > in the costs to provide the resources.
> >
> >
> >   Yours Truly,
> >       Asher Heimermann
> >       Board Member
> >       The Resources of Sheboygan Commission
> >       www.roscfriends.tripod.com
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Free Resources


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Posting such a link sounds like a very good idea to me - it might
raise less irritation than a complete message in english.

teun

On 12/31/06, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/12/29, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com>:
>
> > Perhaps a bot posting sensitive messages into every village pump, simply in
> > english, would be a solution.
>
> My local community is not at all hostile to messages in English on our
> Village pumps. Such animals drop in every now and then, and not seldom
> everone will change their language to English to continue discuss the
> matter - shutting Swedish speakers who do not speak English well out
> completely from the discussion. We seldom care about this. It is one
> of our cultural features, I guess.
>
> I would prefer that the bot posted a short message including a link to
> the major text elsewhere - on Meta, on wikimediafoundation.org, in the
> mailing list archive or whatever. Actually, I think such an info-bot
> would be a good idea. If one wants to draw attention to the mailing
> list as a discussion forum, linking to discussions in mailing list
> archives is probably a good idea.
>
> /habj
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal on references

body:
> From: zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com>
>
> One of the most common complaints about the <ref>...</ref>
> feature is how it disrupts the line spacing.  Have we tried not
> raising the reference numbers at all?  It seems to me that
> judicious use of font size and color would work ok even
> when the reference numbers were sitting on the basline.
> Then the line-spacing problem would go away.

I'd like to think big here and work in a more general way on the
problem of making references have a less intrusive appearance.

Of the people who complain that dense references make articles
unreadable, I am not sure to what extent they are truly complaining
about the appearance or to what extent they simply disagree with the
verifiability policy... but under the current system dense references
do interfere with readability.

While we're doing this, I'd like to see something else. The present
system is an imitation of the superscripted-footnote-reference system
used in books. It works well in books because the text of a book
doesn't change after it has been printed.

In Wikipedia, a reference should mark, not the end of the fact being
supported, but the _beginning and end_ of the fact being supported.
As things stand, careless editing (and there's no way to enforce
careFUL editing) can easily make unsupported statements appear to be
supported. A recent example, from the article on the Statue of
Liberty. A passage once read:

The seven spikes in the crown represent the seven seas and seven
continents.[2]

In due course, or undue course, someone decided to add what I think
were personal musings about the statue symbolizing "the American
Dream," a concept I think was unfamiliar to Bartholdi, and the
passage mutated to:

Each spike on the Seven-spiked crown denotes the seven seas or the
seven continents. The torch embodies the meaning of enlightenment and
guidance for the millions of immigrants seeking freedom from
oppression. The broken shackles lying at Lady Liberty's feet confirm
this view.[2]

You see the problem. The cited source says nothing about shackles or
immigrants. (For that matter, it says nothing about _each_ individual
spike denoting the seven seas or seven continents. Now, personally I
think spike #1 represents the seven seas, spike #2 the seven
continents, spike #3 the Seven Dwarfs, spike #4 the Seven Deadly
Sins, spike #5 the Seven Samurai, spike #6 the Seven Pleiades, and
spike #7 represents the day Bartholdi rested...)


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy y'all
>
> Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of
> complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions.  A user who
> objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
> dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
> contributor should be wikilinked.

People who object to FA candidates on trivial grounds like this should
be given peremptory 1 month bans from all FA discussions.

Jay.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Rory's comment is the one I think should be followed. If linking dates
allows preferences to kick in, it avoids disputes about how the dates should
be displayed.

Mgm

On 1/2/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500
> > From: "Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates
> >        per MoS?
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> >        <10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
> > >
> >
> > And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that?  From my
> > reading it doesn't.  Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely
> exist
> > in
> > the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly
> > written.  Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd
> > very
> > much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher D. Thieme
> > (User:ExplorerCDT)
> >
> > P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix
> > up
> > these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> WP:DATE. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should
> almost always be linked to allow readers' date
> preferences<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Date_format>to
> work, displaying the reader's chosen format." It's necessary for
> technical reasons, not because people want to read the date articles.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Donation of DVDs to Wikimedia Foundation Projects

body:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:

>Big files can be uploaded through Eloquence. It is somewhere on the
>Commons-l mail list.
>
>Bryan
>
So, does this mean that uploading and storage of very large files (> 100
MB) is an accepted practice and something done routinely on Commons?
 That was the whole point of starting this thread was to see if this was
being done and if it was something the WMF wanted to get invovled with.
 Basically, I didn't want to get somebody very, very new to Wikimedia
projects going with a whole lot of effort doing the conversion and more,
as well as trying to upload the files without checking.

I seem to recall some discussions on Meta that discouraged this sort of
media content, especially given the bandwidth and storage costs (there
are costs for simply having content sitting on a disk available for
download).  While fiscal costs related to keeping or deleting a page are
trivial, in this situation these files are far from that.  I'm sure you
could do some specific accounting to determine what it would cost for
the WMF to host just as storage on a hard drive about 1GB of data,
together with serving 1TB of data as bandwidth (assuming that this 1GB
file is downloaded at least 1000 times.... a rather conservative notion
given crawling engines alone not to mention interested Wikimedia users).
 Assuming this is multiple DVDs and several hours of video, it could be
substantially more than even this rather modest amount.  Using a
commercial ISP this would amount to several hundreds of dollars over the
course of a year for these files alone.

Owing to Anthere's general epistle (it was somewhat long) to the
Wikimedia community, noting especially the comments that the WMF is
operating on a shoestring budget, I thought it reasonable to ask this
question.  This is also a preceedent setting situation that is likely to
be copied in the future as well, multiplying the issue several times over.

That all this certainly fits within the "mission" of Wikimedia projects
means that it is also something that should be strongly considered, but
I thought it also reasonable to vet the issues first.

The technical issues over how to actually accomplish this are in
comparison very trivial, and I can muddle through and figure that out.
 It is nice to know that Erik would be the best contact to get this
accomplished, however in a technical sense.  Thanks for that bit of info.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:28:36 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
>in London are most welcome.

Bah!  I'm busy.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives

body:
A number of people answered this call. A summary of ideas from the dutch pub:
* save money on bandwith by symplfying html. - however, I checked and
html seems already pretty lean.
* Save discspace by deleting older versions of articles - probably
contradicts GFDL.
* Make lists of charities. Foundation board is probably already doing this.
* There were a number of people who suggested running selected commercial ads.
* Distributed storage - technically probably not yet feasible
* Grid computing
* Publish thematical information as commercial books
* Sell dvds, either whole encyclopedia or thematical
* Make deals with clones or block them
* Same for news agencies
* Make bio info available for pda's. A lot easier to carry around than
field guides
* Asks subsidies from UN, EU and individual states.
* Be more selective in accepting articles
* Much of what we have is fancruft, and it seems fairly popular. Move
all fanstuff to a separate project, outside wikipedia. Call if
fanpedia or something. Let this project be more liberal in its
acceptance of media, and let this project accept advertisements. This
could probably support all wiki projects.
* If images cost to much bandwidth, put a limit of 3 images / article.

teun

On 12/29/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Old Chinese proverb:
>
> "... no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it ..."
>
> mountain = foundation
> wind = people whining.
>
> :-)
>
> Jeff
>
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Lots of people are yelling and shouting that the current vision and policy
> >of the foundation is totally wrong. I would like to invite all these people
> >and others to think about alternatives. We won't get rid of these ugly
> >things (everybody agrees upon that, i guess) in the sitenotice without any
> >serious alternatives. I already asked this in the Dutch Village Pump, I hope
> >you will bring the question back to all your communities, to the places
> >where is discussed about the sitenotice. I have myself troubles to come up
> >with serious alternatives, so I hope you guys have one. And when you have
> >one, then you can ideed start a discussion about which solution is better. I
> >look forward to your ideas, and please keep the discussion about how bad the
> >current solution is for other threads.
> >
> >Lodewijk / Eia
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives


body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 1/2/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm sure you
>>could do some specific accounting to determine what it would cost for
>>the WMF to host just as storage on a hard drive about 1GB of data,
>>together with serving 1TB of data as bandwidth (assuming that this 1GB
>>file is downloaded at least 1000 times.... a rather conservative notion
>>given crawling engines alone not to mention interested Wikimedia users).
>>
>>
>
>FWIW, none of the major crawlers download entire gigabyte sized files.
>
>For something that huge though, bittorrent seems like a much smarter
>choice, especially if others could be convinced to act as seeds.
>
>Anthony
>
Now that might be a very reasonable suggestion, and certainly an
alternative to be discussed.  There are some problems with bittorrents,
viewing from an archival point of view, but it is certainly an option if
files this size become very popular.  Of course there have been several
attempts to try and do a P2P version of Wikipedia as well, which has
vetted many of the issues that would relate to bittorrents as well for
things like this.  Some infrastructure issues still would have to be
addressed if this is the route we would like to go for files this large.

And as far as crawlers are concerned, who said anything about "major
crawlers" here?  Problems from idiots who write their own crawlers
without thinking, and crazies who try to mirror Wikimedia projects the
hard way can cause enough problems.  Besides, are you sure the Internet
Archive doesn't download gigabyte sized files right now?  They
constantly surprise me on what they do, and I've grabbed archived
downloads from them in the past that were rather large.

And the curious alone would be a source of some bandwidth.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 02/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this a new trend? That's the second time I've been notified of a meeting
> without enough prior notice to consider attending :(

Well, it wasn't a "meeting," it was just James and me going down the
pub 'cos we haven't in ages, and then all these overseas visitors
happened to be in town, and then I still hadn't picked a pub by
yesterday afternoon ...

So tomorrow is just a bunch of people going down the pub, next week
we'll have a Jimbo-blessed ... going down the pub ;-)

- d.


body:
On 01/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/01/07, James Forrester <jdforrester at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Re. tomorrow, how about meeting in central London - such as the
> > Montague Pike (reasonable Wetherspoons on Charing Cross Road between
> > Tottenham Court Road and Liecester Square) at 17:30 or thereabouts?
> > If this is OK with you, can you send an e-mail to wikimediauk-l and
> > the usual gang/etc. with invites? That'd probably be quickest!

> You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
> in London are most welcome. Chris Sherlock (Ta bu shi da yu),
> Brassratgirl and Austin Hair are in town as well. I'll be along around
> 6:30 or 7ish after work.

The correct spelling of the name of the place is the " Montagu Pyke" -
http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/pubfinder/details.php?OutletNumber=644
105?107 Charing Cross Rd (corner Greek St), WC2H 0BP
http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=529961&y=180957&z=1
Tubes: Leicester Square, Covent Garden, Tottenham Court Road,
Piccadilly Circus, Charing Cross. It's right in the centre of London,
everything is near everything.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>James Hare wrote:
>
>
>>For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication,
>>because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
>>
>>
>I will happily apologize for the poor communication; the fundraiser has
>been run a bit chaotically, with lots of last-minute jumps and hurdles
>and our communication and planning on the visible parts (such as the
>site notice) have indeed been *abysmal*.
>
>The notices for instance ought to have been prepared and translated a
>week or two before they went up, which would have given a lot more time
>for people to see what sort of stuff was actually going to be going up.
>
True as this may be, I have noticed considerable improvements in
communicastions since our new pr?sidente has taken office.  Finally
dealing with financial statements was a big step forward.  In that
context the lacunae in communications are understandable, and do not
require the apology that has been so importunately demanded.

>A proper, functioning fundraising committee involving the community
>would also be super. That was supposed to happen, but apparently things
>fell apart...
>
Would it be wrong to assume that the bitching about the Virgin banner is
consistent with the amount of effort that those doing the bitching have
put into the fundraising committee. ;-)

Ec


body:
Is this a new trend? That's the second time I've been notified of a meeting
without enough prior notice to consider attending :(

On 1/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/01/07, James Forrester <jdforrester at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Re. tomorrow, how about meeting in central London - such as the
> > Montague Pike (reasonable Wetherspoons on Charing Cross Road between
> > Tottenham Court Road and Liecester Square) at 17:30 or thereabouts?
> > If this is OK with you, can you send an e-mail to wikimediauk-l and
> > the usual gang/etc. with invites? That'd probably be quickest!
>
>
> You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
> in London are most welcome. Chris Sherlock (Ta bu shi da yu),
> Brassratgirl and Austin Hair are in town as well. I'll be along around
> 6:30 or 7ish after work.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [18764]
	trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialUndelete.php

body:
On 02/01/07, brion at svn.wikimedia.org <brion at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> use the full sm?\195?\182rg?\195?\165sbord of anti-caching headers; 'Cache-Control' alone will be ignored by HTTP 1.0 proxies, which may or may not be out there doing evil things

Thanks, I forgot about HTTP 1.0 proxies and Cache-Control headers. :)

Rob Church


body:
On 02/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:

> Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of
> complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions.  A user who
> objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
> dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
> contributor should be wikilinked.

This sort of pointless querulousness is why I gave up on FAC. I
strongly advise you to do what's best for the article first.

Linking "retrieved" dates strikes me as not particularly useful and
looks like overlinking. The only plus I can see for it is that it
triggers the date-format preference mechanism.

- d.

- d.


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons

body:
On 02/01/07, Cary Bass <bastique at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I am fairly certain that the policy on Commons is that cities and other
> localities are in the native language.  Therefore M?nchen and Praha are
> absolutely correct and the categories must be fixed.

No...
did you ever notice [[category:??]] ? (or even worse, maybe
[[category:transport in ??]]?)

Nobody likes enforcing English-only categories to further Anglo-saxon
supremism or the like, but until we have proper category redirects...

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


body:
On 02/01/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:

> But I think it's a mischaracterization to say there's been an ongoing
> promise never to have sponsorship or anything similar to advertising.
> Please don't confuse public expectation with promises.

This is an example of violating expectations as opposed to violating
policy. The former is actually more problematic, because policy rules
are breakable and formable, but violating expectations is an
"everything you knew about this world was wrong" moment. People feel
the ground shifting under their feet, and they get much more upset.
That's what's happening here, I think.

(my own position: naming a matching company in text is fine, issuing a
press release is important, I'd really rather not have a corporate
logo there at all ... and make sure they understand that Virgin
Unite's site was knocked off the net 12 minutes after the link went up
and to be ready for it ;-)

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
The real value of library software is not the software, but the data
in their databases. One of the major players on the Dutch market
charges for this software is OCLC. They maintain their near monopoly
because of the data in their databases.

On 1/1/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have learned from some organisations who also do things that can be
> considered as charitable. They told me that as a consequence of the Gates
> Foundation and its activities many things are no longer accepted because
> this notion of giving away and consequently forcing people to buy into
> upgrade schemes etc is not accepted any more in the same way as it used to
> be.
>
> As to libraries and their software, I just read the other day of another
> great open source project that targets the administration of libraries and
> is really efficient at this. I forgot its name ..
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 1/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > Anthony wrote:
> > >
> > > >Interesting...  They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and
> > > >providing technical support and training.  Would they still donate the
> > > >computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on
> > > >them?  Maybe.  But would they still provide the free technical support
> > > >and training for those libraries?  Somehow I doubt it (although it
> > > >would be really cool if they did).
> > > >
> > > Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux?  The primary reason
> > > for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of
> > > proprietary licences.
> > >
> > I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free
> > software rather than no-cost software.  If you really have trouble
> > finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search
> > for some resources.  Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
> >
> > But for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough for me to merely
> > point out that the software license being given to the libraries does
> > not entitle that library to free upgrades.  That alone should be
> > enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal.  the
> > clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to
> > give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
> >
> > Of course, all other things aren't equal.  If the library gets free
> > support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free
> > support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the
> > first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose
> > Linux.
> >
> > If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the libraries, then they
> > should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the
> > continued charity of Microsoft.
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] User date preferences (refactoring existing dates)

body:
On 1/2/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see what the big problem is.
> Sure having dates autoformatted without linking them would be nice, but
> really what's wrong with linking full dates?

It's not per se a *big* problem, but there are some issues.

One is that on a Wiki without date articles, you get redlinks.  E.g. commons.

Another is that it means that the date articles are referenced by far
too many articles.

Another is simply too much of a 'sea of bue links' - unnecessary
linkage (a cosmetic and aesthetic issue).

-Matt


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
On 1/2/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the
> infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter
> debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the
> very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what
> it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are  doing.
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can  freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
>
That statement is "the very root of all the Wikimedia projects"?  When
was that decided?

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics


body:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:25:56 -0500, "Christopher Thieme"
<cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:

>A user who
>objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
>dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
>contributor should be wikilinked.

When you've got that sorted you'll be needing to chop down the tallest
tree in the forest... WITH... A HERRING!!!

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


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [WikiEN-l] Not so broken after all, perhaps

body:
On 1/2/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/01/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60
> > sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist:
> > statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages. It'd be a lot of work to
> > set up, but it's simpler than it sounds. AfD logs would look something like
> > this...
>
>
> Run it past the devs so they don't want to kill anyone for trying this.

Good luck with the inclusion limit (which I believe is currently 2
MB).  If you can squeeze it in, note that due to caching, it won't
randomize unless you constantly purge it.

> I wonder if it's possible to implement the Towers of Hanoi in template
> code. Or Emacs. Or a wiki bot.

All of the above, I believe, if you disable the inclusion limit (and
don't mind exorbitant CPU/memory usage).  Rumor has it that templates
have been proven Turing-complete.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill@gmail.com>

body:
On 1/2/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I have no idea where this "usability" rubbish comes from! Make
> the damn users work themselves: computers should ship with a
> Linux-based TUI OS. ;)

Text? Bah.  Toggle switches and blinkenlights.  That'll teach 'em.

-Matt


body:
Kat Walsh wrote:

>I do
>believe in free content, not anti-commercial content; I don't think an
>ad-supported project is desirable or something I would support, but
>not for anticommercialism. I am happy for the writing I have
>contributed to be used for any purpose, so long as it remains free;
>that's a really powerful idea, and now one that I am happy to support
>at an organizational level.
>
That's the bottom line.  What's most frightening is the thought that at
some future time someone or some future board would turn all these
efforts into something proprietary.  I think we are safe with the
present Board, but we do need to safeguard against such eventualities in
the longer term.

>Though I speak only for myself, I think it is fair to say that the
>Board knew there would be some people, even many people, upset and
>disappointed with the decision; most of us now come from within the
>community and are aware of how communities will react even if a call
>for community comment does not happen every time. Sometimes doing what
>you think is the best decision, considering all the factors, means
>making some people unhappy with you.
>
>It's impossible to do anything new and still please everyone all of
>the time; changing anything usually means upsetting something that
>someone else thought was important, maybe even relied on.
>
This has to do with mastering the art of bringing a broader community
into a decision.  Anthere has noted elsewhere that the committee system
has not been as successful as it might have been.  Some people are
content to work in their particular area of interest, and nothing more.
They may even be willing to participate actively in a WikiProject.  (I
would rename WikiProjects tp Study Groups, but that's another story.)
That's fine; they shouldn't need to be dragged further into
wiki-politics.  Others will complain endlessly about what is wrong,
without ever putting forth a constructive suggestion. They are a fact of
life about which nothing can be done; they will not be improved by
giving them greater opportunity.  Still others do have more to
contribute, but have difficulty finding the right place to help.

Perhaps what went wrong with the Committees was that the call to
participate was so general that everyone waited for the other person to
volunteer.  Perhaps too the original annoncement left the feeling that
we were being offered a closed list of committees whose structure was
pre-determined.  Such an impression can be left unintentionally.  As
established committees get older, the appearance of a closed group gets
more pronounced.  Committees need to report and recruit.  Some will work
better in a confidential environment, but that only makes the need to
report and recruit more acute.  Recruitment needs to be more active.
Any existing member of a committee should be on the lookout for others
who take an interest in those matters that fall within the committee's
terms of reference, and who appear willing to offer new ideas rather
than just putting out an unremitting stream of complaints.  When they
are identified a committee should be prepared to actively invite them to
be a member of the committee; people are more likely to feel welcome
when they are asked to join.  Committees should also be ready to divide
or to form sub-committees when they get too big or when one topic tends
to dominate the committee's activities more than all the others combined.

>It's our
>responsibility to keep the projects running according to our stated
>goals. Which includes raising enough money to keep the data flowing
>and the lights on, and making sure that what we do doesn't conflict
>with putting together free-content reference works.
>
It's the crunch of reality.

>It is expected courtesy to publicly
>acknowledge such large gifts, and doing so by means of a logo or a
>namedrop does not change its nature; in 2005 we even thanked Yahoo!
>for their donation with a press release trumpeting it.
>
Did anyone complain about the banner to thank the sponsors at Wikimania?

>We could have communicated the decision better. Organization of the
>fundraiser has been somewhat shaky, was held back by a few surprise
>difficulties, and could certainly be improved; lessons learned for
>next time.
>
All things considered I would attach no blame.  I would have preferred
no ad, but I don't think that enough happened to warrant strong reactions.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
On 02/01/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

> That's our commitment.
> As for what it doesn't say:
> It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
> It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a
> European language ..."
> It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better."
> It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out  more/buy it."
> It does not say "That's what we did."

I'm using this message and quoting "It does not say 'share freely
unless the unfree content is better.'" when removing "fair use" pics
we have a free replacement for ;-D

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics


body:
On 1/2/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> I'm sure you
> could do some specific accounting to determine what it would cost for
> the WMF to host just as storage on a hard drive about 1GB of data,
> together with serving 1TB of data as bandwidth (assuming that this 1GB
> file is downloaded at least 1000 times.... a rather conservative notion
> given crawling engines alone not to mention interested Wikimedia users).

FWIW, none of the major crawlers download entire gigabyte sized files.

For something that huge though, bittorrent seems like a much smarter
choice, especially if others could be convinced to act as seeds.

Anthony


from_name: Joe Sparks

subject: [Wikitech-l] Linking Internally to Categories

body:
Hello,

Quick question.  I have searched many pages for this answer but have not
found a working solution.

How do I link to a section of the Category list?  I have tried:

[[Category:Testing]]
[[{{localurl:Category:Testing}}]]
[[Category:Testing?year=2007]]
[[Special:Categories:Testing]]
[[Categories:Testing]]

I am trying to add a link from one page to a section of the Category
list.  Is that possible?  I noticed on the main MediaWiki page there is
a link to the extensions category, but that is an external link.  I
could do an external link, but would prefer all internal ones.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks!

Joe


body:
On 02/01/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:25:56 -0500, "Christopher Thieme"
> <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:

> >A user who
> >objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
> >dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
> >contributor should be wikilinked.

> When you've got that sorted you'll be needing to chop down the tallest
> tree in the forest... WITH... A HERRING!!!

Someone needs to start marking this sort of FAC idiocy with "This
objection is a shrubbery."

- d.


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
further endeavours!

Waerth

>I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
>
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
>
>
>I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
>people like me, who have been on the project for many
>years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
>about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
>whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
>as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
>who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
>as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
>(and others involved) that the values of the community
>*do* have a substantial number of people who will never
>accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
>comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
>understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
>addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
>must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
>to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
>with the other.
>
>I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
>has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
>stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
>Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
>accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
>the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>
>If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
>the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
>
>It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
>with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
>I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
>big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
>through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
>
>Goodbye.
>
>---
>Pat Gunn
>mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
>http://dachte.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


body:
On 02/01/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Curious... when making a press release and a text mention of the sponsoring
> charity, it's okay, but when we bring in the logo, why is that officially
> crossing the line?

I was stating it in terms of my own personal preference. I thought it
looked too ad-bannerish with the logo. Text links are more tasteful.

- d.


body:
Yep, that worked great!

Thank you very much for the extremely fast response!

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:45 AM
To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Linking Internally to Categories

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:44:47PM -0600, Joe Sparks wrote:
> Quick question.  I have searched many pages for this answer but have
> not found a working solution.
>
> How do I link to a section of the Category list?  I have tried:
>
> [[Category:Testing]]
> [[{{localurl:Category:Testing}}]]
> [[Category:Testing?year=2007]]
> [[Special:Categories:Testing]]
> [[Categories:Testing]]
>
> I am trying to add a link from one page to a section of the Category
> list.  Is that possible?  I noticed on the main MediaWiki page there
> is a link to the extensions category, but that is an external link.  I

> could do an external link, but would prefer all internal ones.

I believe you do it by putting a colon *in front* of the word Category:

[[:Category:testing]]

but I'm not positive.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink
RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think
'87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727
647 1274
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
On 01/01/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60
> sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist:
> statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages. It'd be a lot of work to
> set up, but it's simpler than it sounds. AfD logs would look something like
> this...

Run it past the devs so they don't want to kill anyone for trying this.

(AFD has been problematic in the past. The old VFD, which included
seven days' deletion discussions in one huge multi-megabyte HTML page,
was not only a major pain in the backside for the users, it caused
server performance problems all by itself. Leading to the present
situation where it's broken up by days.)

I wonder if it's possible to implement the Towers of Hanoi in template
code. Or Emacs. Or a wiki bot.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] Not so broken after all, perhaps


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:

> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and
> good luck in your
> further endeavours!
>
> Waerth
>
> >I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message
> here:
> >
>
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
> >
> >
> >I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
> >people like me, who have been on the project for
> many
> >years, as being uncaring about our values. I care
> deeply
> >about the project, and feel that accepting
> advertising,
> >whether it be for brand identity or a specific
> product,
> >as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many
> users
> >who have put userboxen against advertisements (as
> ironic
> >as that is) on their userpages should've taught
> Brion
> >(and others involved) that the values of the
> community
> >*do* have a substantial number of people who will
> never
> >accept this kind of thing. After reading some of
> the other
> >comments on this list and chatting with a few
> folks, I
> >understand that my concerns, while considered, will
> not be
> >addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects)
> are and
> >must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it
> is impossible
> >to honestly educate with one hand while waving a
> billboard
> >with the other.
> >
> >I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
> >has made here, for it is not something I will live
> with and
> >stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the
> Spanish
> >Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish
> with my
> >accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to
> summarise
> >the foundation lists) that a new project head is
> needed.
> >
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
> >
> >If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to
> pick up
> >the ball.

I will pick up the ball here.  I think LSS is an
extremely important project.  I thank you for your
work in starting LSS as well as all your other
contributions.

BirgitteSB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
On 01/01/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:

> If there actually is some template that generates random numbers, somebody
> shoot me now. ;)

There's probably something - we have the "random" extension, which
lets you use <choose> <option>Option 1</option> <option>Option
2</option> </choose> to choose something automatically. It's very
popular on Uncyclopedia. See:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Fundraiser

- d.