subject:
[Foundation-l] "By electing some of the Board members,
	who are really few"...

body:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/12/28, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> > On 28/12/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7,
> > > and I think this is the first problem.
> >
> >
> > You are actually completely and utterly wrong here. You need outsiders
> > on a board for perspective.
>
> Sure, but we can talk of "external perspective" only when we have a
> complete "internal perspective", that is what we have not.
>

It is widely considered irresponsible for companies or charitable
organizations NOT to have external representatives on the board of
directors.

If you believe that there is an internal communications problem, then I
support you publicizing it and working to end it, but getting rid of
external-ish board members is a terribly wrong solution.

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


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: George Herbert


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New ideas for fundraising needed. Start here!

body:
How about, we hold a bunch of bake sales worldwide? The money that is earned
would then go to Wikimedia.

On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
> > > > suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?
>
> > > Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
> > > a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
> > > income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
> > > need of cash" count?
>
> > No.
> > Did I really have to say that? ;-)
>
>
> Then take it as read ;-)
>
> Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
>
> Post your idea below:
>
> --->
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Lane, Ryan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Adding custom CSS and Javascript for extensions

body:
> ProfileMonitor uses the SkinTemplateSetupPageCss hook. This
> seems to exist from 1.6.0 upwards. The extension is in Subversion.
>
>
> Rob Church

I need to output css and javascript, and this one only outputs css. It
did however lead me in the right direction. "BeforePageDisplay" in
SkinTemplate.php is available in 1.7+ and the comments say it is
specifically there to allow extensions to add css and javascript. I'll
update mediawiki.org's hooks list so this is easier for the next person.

Thanks for the help everyone!

V/r,

Ryan Lane


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gatto Nero

subject: [Foundation-l] new site notice now ready

body:
2006/12/28, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com>:

> 10. There are people out there who want to help us. Some have selfish
> motives, no doubt, and others have purely altruistic motives. Deal with it. Such  is
> life.
> 11. When the selfish overwhelms the altruistic, we can say no. The  Board has
> said no--to some very big potential sponsors.

Yesterday, on #wikimedia, some people asked how sponsorpartners are
choosen or have been choosen.

The answer we had was that there were to factors used:
"1) they have the money"
"2) they're nice"

Now, 'cause of "They're nice" is a very, very generic factor, it seems
that the only importang thing is that they have the money.

But I'll be happy to understand better which have been the reasons why
a company has been choosen, and another not.


body:
2006/12/28, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com>:

> Simple--Are they doing it to get their name up in Wikipedia? Just given the
> amount of spam we face, there are plenty of companies out there who see that
> as  their sole objective.

Oh. And Virgin didn't made that to get their logo up in Wikipedia. No
way, they're charitable.


from_name: David Strauss

body:
Exactly.

See:
- NPR
- PBS
- Every museum
- Every university

If the WMF had thanked large donors from the beginning, no one would
object at all. It's just the nature of the Internet that the WMF has
been able to operate on so little money for so long. That's no longer
the case with the current size.

Contrary to most people's perceptions, establishing the matching
contributions has not been an easy task. So, it's not that the WMF has
suddenly decided to "sell out." It just hasn't been necessary or
practical to establish matching contributions in the past.

David Strauss

David Gerard wrote:
> On 28/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donations to WMF from 12/15/06 to 12/28/06:
>> 2 people have given very large gifts ($25,000 and our anonymous matching
>> donor)
>> 49 people have given 500-10,000 USD ($67,594)
>> 739 people have given 100 - 499 USD ($96,222)
>> 1184 people have given 50-99 USD ($68,728)
>> 2346 people have given 25-49 USD ($70,106)
>> 5340 people have given 10-24 USD ($77,189)
>> 4204 people have given 1-9 USD ($19,059)
>> 891 people have given less than 1 USD ($481)
>
>
> Yes. One thing very few people understand about fundraising is that it
> works on a power law. A graph of donations per donor will show a very
> few donors donating a substantial fraction of the takings.
>
> And it is *usual* to thank them publicly and not to shy away from or
> try to play down doing so.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/2348ff09/attachment.pgp


body:
Exactly.

See:
- NPR
- PBS
- Every museum
- Every university

If the WMF had thanked large donors from the beginning, no one would
object at all. It's just the nature of the Internet that the WMF has
been able to operate on so little money for so long. That's no longer
the case with the current size.

Contrary to most people's perceptions, establishing the matching
contributions has not been an easy task. So, it's not that the WMF has
suddenly decided to "sell out." It just hasn't been necessary or
practical to establish matching contributions in the past.

David Strauss

David Gerard wrote:
> On 28/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donations to WMF from 12/15/06 to 12/28/06:
>> 2 people have given very large gifts ($25,000 and our anonymous matching
>> donor)
>> 49 people have given 500-10,000 USD ($67,594)
>> 739 people have given 100 - 499 USD ($96,222)
>> 1184 people have given 50-99 USD ($68,728)
>> 2346 people have given 25-49 USD ($70,106)
>> 5340 people have given 10-24 USD ($77,189)
>> 4204 people have given 1-9 USD ($19,059)
>> 891 people have given less than 1 USD ($481)
>
>
> Yes. One thing very few people understand about fundraising is that it
> works on a power law. A graph of donations per donor will show a very
> few donors donating a substantial fraction of the takings.
>
> And it is *usual* to thank them publicly and not to shy away from or
> try to play down doing so.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/2348ff09/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Exactly.

See:
- NPR
- PBS
- Every museum
- Every university

If the WMF had thanked large donors from the beginning, no one would
object at all. It's just the nature of the Internet that the WMF has
been able to operate on so little money for so long. That's no longer
the case with the current size.

Contrary to most people's perceptions, establishing the matching
contributions has not been an easy task. So, it's not that the WMF has
suddenly decided to "sell out." It just hasn't been necessary or
practical to establish matching contributions in the past.

David Strauss

David Gerard wrote:
> On 28/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donations to WMF from 12/15/06 to 12/28/06:
>> 2 people have given very large gifts ($25,000 and our anonymous matching
>> donor)
>> 49 people have given 500-10,000 USD ($67,594)
>> 739 people have given 100 - 499 USD ($96,222)
>> 1184 people have given 50-99 USD ($68,728)
>> 2346 people have given 25-49 USD ($70,106)
>> 5340 people have given 10-24 USD ($77,189)
>> 4204 people have given 1-9 USD ($19,059)
>> 891 people have given less than 1 USD ($481)
>
>
> Yes. One thing very few people understand about fundraising is that it
> works on a power law. A graph of donations per donor will show a very
> few donors donating a substantial fraction of the takings.
>
> And it is *usual* to thank them publicly and not to shy away from or
> try to play down doing so.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/2348ff09/attachment.pgp>


body:
Exactly.

See:
- NPR
- PBS
- Every museum
- Every university

If the WMF had thanked large donors from the beginning, no one would
object at all. It's just the nature of the Internet that the WMF has
been able to operate on so little money for so long. That's no longer
the case with the current size.

Contrary to most people's perceptions, establishing the matching
contributions has not been an easy task. So, it's not that the WMF has
suddenly decided to "sell out." It just hasn't been necessary or
practical to establish matching contributions in the past.

David Strauss

David Gerard wrote:
> On 28/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donations to WMF from 12/15/06 to 12/28/06:
>> 2 people have given very large gifts ($25,000 and our anonymous matching
>> donor)
>> 49 people have given 500-10,000 USD ($67,594)
>> 739 people have given 100 - 499 USD ($96,222)
>> 1184 people have given 50-99 USD ($68,728)
>> 2346 people have given 25-49 USD ($70,106)
>> 5340 people have given 10-24 USD ($77,189)
>> 4204 people have given 1-9 USD ($19,059)
>> 891 people have given less than 1 USD ($481)
>
>
> Yes. One thing very few people understand about fundraising is that it
> works on a power law. A graph of donations per donor will show a very
> few donors donating a substantial fraction of the takings.
>
> And it is *usual* to thank them publicly and not to shy away from or
> try to play down doing so.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/2348ff09/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
Exactly, this is "Virgin Unite has been nice enough to double your
donation," not "Check out the V Festival from VIRGIN, Proud Sponsors of the
Wikimedia Foundation."

If you don't like it, donate more! The more you donate, the less they have.

On 12/28/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly.
>
> See:
> - NPR
> - PBS
> - Every museum
> - Every university
>
> If the WMF had thanked large donors from the beginning, no one would
> object at all. It's just the nature of the Internet that the WMF has
> been able to operate on so little money for so long. That's no longer
> the case with the current size.
>
> Contrary to most people's perceptions, establishing the matching
> contributions has not been an easy task. So, it's not that the WMF has
> suddenly decided to "sell out." It just hasn't been necessary or
> practical to establish matching contributions in the past.
>
> David Strauss
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 28/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Donations to WMF from 12/15/06 to 12/28/06:
> >> 2 people have given very large gifts ($25,000 and our anonymous
> matching
> >> donor)
> >> 49 people have given 500-10,000 USD ($67,594)
> >> 739 people have given 100 - 499 USD ($96,222)
> >> 1184 people have given 50-99 USD ($68,728)
> >> 2346 people have given 25-49 USD ($70,106)
> >> 5340 people have given 10-24 USD ($77,189)
> >> 4204 people have given 1-9 USD ($19,059)
> >> 891 people have given less than 1 USD ($481)
> >
> >
> > Yes. One thing very few people understand about fundraising is that it
> > works on a power law. A graph of donations per donor will show a very
> > few donors donating a substantial fraction of the takings.
> >
> > And it is *usual* to thank them publicly and not to shy away from or
> > try to play down doing so.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Meta Chr2syl Cherokee Unicode Extensions

body:
On 12/28/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> I need this extension:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chr2syl
>
> installed on the Cherokee Wikipedia.  Is there a page somewhere on meta
> for this purpose to request Brion to install the
> extension for editing in Sequoyah Syllabary?   I did not see a page for
> requesting extensions installed.  I know when I install
> extensions, I have to do it from the unix login and its not normally
> possible to install them from the web interface.
>
> Any assistance would be appreciated.

As Rob said, file them in our Bugzilla, but be prepared to explain why
you need a separate C utility for efficient conversion.  Wouldn't
script variants be ideal for this, if there's an algorithmic way to
convert from Latin to Sequoyah and back?  We already do that for
Chinese and Serbian, and it allows people to view things in Latin if
they prefer.


from_name: Michael Bimmler

body:
On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is a huge difference between "thank a donor for what it did" and
> > > "put a commercial logo in Wikipedia home-page".
> >
> > 1) Virgin Unite is the non-profit arm of Virgin. It's a charitable
> > organization listed in directories such as GuideStar.
>
> I searched Guidestar yesterday, and couldn't find it.  I figured this
> was because it was a UK organization.  Is it really in there?
>
http://www.guidestar.org.uk/gs_summary.aspx?CCReg=297540&strquery=Virgin%20Unite
Michael
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 12/28/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on the financial reality of needing to raise more money, for hardware,
> software, bandwidth and staffing (in broad strokes), what is the solution to
> question of financial support?  Dig deeper?  Blame the community of editors
> (as opposed to readers) for not donating enough?  Get the starving college
> kid to give $3 instead of $2?
>
How about getting the starving college kid with the 300 gig hard drive
sitting idly on a T1 connection in his dorm to lend some of that spare
hardware, software, bandwidth, and staffing directly?

Eh, I shouldn't waste my time mentioning this to you.  When the forks
start coming, and it looks like that time is getting close, one of
them will figure it out.

> If one day of corporate matching brings us on the order of $60,000 per
> company, that is an enormous advantage over asking the community for more.
> Don't you think?

Eh, right now it's just taking the money from one group of donors
instead of another.  What would be the enormous advantage would be to
not need the money in the first place.

> If we have a $100,000 per month bandwidth bill later in
> 2007, it will still need to be paid.

Is that your current estimate of bandwidth costs?

> I will assume you would rather the
> projects stay online than die.

The projects will stay online no matter what happens to the Wikimedia
Foundation.

> If we buy another 300 servers, where should
> the money come from?

You shouldn't buy another 300 servers in the first place.

> It seems clear that the reality here is beyond some
> level of understanding with at least a portion of the  people who read this
> list.
>
Without access to the proposed budget, yeah, it's hard to know exactly
where the money is being wasted.

Anthony


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 12/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with
> a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only reason
> why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that are
> contrary to our principles.
[snip]

In IRC last night, Jeroenvrp asserted rather loudly that even if we
were offered a trillion dollars we should not accept a *single*
advertisement on our website.

This was after I'd made an example involving freeing every book ever
published. A trillion dollars  would probably be enough to do it, and
probably with enough left over to translate them all and distribute
access to them to most of the world.

So, tell me... Should I feel guilty for judging anyone who makes a
claim like his to be selfish, short-sighted,  irrational, and
generally unworthy of our serious consideration?

Of course we're not talking about getting a 'trillion' dollars from
everyone, but we're not talking about an advertisement in the normal
sense.  Our action here is to be liberal with our gratitude in our
thanks, not only because doing so is nice.. but because by doing so we
hope to demonstrate to large and wealthy donors that we are a worthy
recipient of substantial donations from large and wealthy donors.. and
through that establish a long term pattern of substantial matching
support from the groups in the world most able to provide it.

Often the media can't even figure out that Wikipedia is a charity and
we've had instance of meetings with seriously important people who
think that Wikipedia is just another Web 2.0 hopeful that plans to
make a fortune without a business plan...  Our fundraiser will remind
the world that we are a charity, and being loud and clear about the
support we are getting from groups like Virgin Unite tells all of the
large companies and foundations that is proper and, hopefully someday,
expected for them to donate to us.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

references:
<jm18p2t8hfm63hc8puptblt559716ebsc2@4ax.com>
	<54f6f2050612281016i390ee0cbg446e55bf4989eeaf@mail.gmail.com>
	<uf48p25ofhvqa2r1mtf7s0tdpv6opctklu@4ax.com>
	<38a7bf7c0612281227r7f88e14y9819c9e981f34520@mail.gmail.com>
	<apf8p2d3m364bdcplq7mr5d2hg5329sfa5@4ax.com>

body:
On 12/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:27:35 -0800, "George Herbert"
> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am against deleting articles which are accurate but not (yet) well
> >referenced.  Fixing the references problem is a valid ongoing concern,
> but I
> >don't see any reason to delete this article.
>
> Last time, sure.  This time, when it's still not fixed?  I disagree.
>

I think we have a fuzzy-boundary problem with neologisms.

I think that deleting this is not the ultimate right answer.

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


body:
On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> How about getting the starving college kid with the 300 gig hard drive
> sitting idly on a T1 connection in his dorm to lend some of that spare
> hardware, software, bandwidth, and staffing directly?
[snip]
> You shouldn't buy another 300 servers in the first place.

What a great idea.
When will you have your implementation of "distributed mediawiki" completed?


body:
On 12/28/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, but we can talk of "external perspective" only when we have a
> complete "internal perspective", that is what we have not.

If it is so complicated that 5 of our most trusted community members,
plus two more people whom they respect and trust, can not understand
it... then I fear that it must be hopelessly.


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Listspace

body:
On 28/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> After all it does have a featured
> process, and it does lend itself to possibilities; lists could be

Most featured articles have a signficant prose introduction and some
analysis. They tend to have images too. They're essentially articles.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Patrick Hall

body:
> > Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
> > Post your idea below:
> > --->

What about selling printed volumes of featured articles organized by topic?

I don't really know anything about the economics of publishing... but
the foundation might come out on top, no?

-Pat
User:Babbage

--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -pkd


from_name: Damian Finol

subject: [Foundation-l] New ideas for fundraising needed. Start here!

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
>>>> suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?
>
>>> Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
>>> a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
>>> income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
>>> need of cash" count?
>
>> No.
>> Did I really have to say that? ;-)
>
>
> Then take it as read ;-)
>
> Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
>
> Post your idea below:
>
> --->
>
Lobby the UN for Funds, I bet UNESCO might want to get involved given
the nature of the projects..

That's all.

Damian
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 12/28/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just don't like the ad.
>>
> I don't mind the ad now any more than the ad two days ago, or the ad
> two months ago.  It does seem to be a slippery slope, though.
>
> Anthony

To an extent I agree. The current advertisement is just about the limit
of what I'm prepared to tolerate.

-Gurch


body:
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > How about getting the starving college kid with the 300 gig hard drive
> > sitting idly on a T1 connection in his dorm to lend some of that spare
> > hardware, software, bandwidth, and staffing directly?
> [snip]
> > You shouldn't buy another 300 servers in the first place.
>
> What a great idea.
> When will you have your implementation of "distributed mediawiki" completed?

It's already completed.  I just need you to transfer over the domain names.


body:
I really think that if Wikimedia wants to succeed, it needs to be more
distributed.

I wouldn't mind surrendering a few GBs of my computer to help host.

On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > How about getting the starving college kid with the 300 gig hard drive
> > > sitting idly on a T1 connection in his dorm to lend some of that spare
> > > hardware, software, bandwidth, and staffing directly?
> > [snip]
> > > You shouldn't buy another 300 servers in the first place.
> >
> > What a great idea.
> > When will you have your implementation of "distributed mediawiki"
> completed?
>
> It's already completed.  I just need you to transfer over the domain
> names.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > > > You shouldn't buy another 300 servers in the first place.
>
> > > What a great idea.
> > > When will you have your implementation of "distributed mediawiki" completed?
>
> > It's already completed.  I just need you to transfer over the domain names.
>
> whuh??? Project page?
>
Sorry, that was sarcasm :).  Seriously though, I understand a
distributed mediawiki wouldn't occur overnight, but that's no excuse
to just throw up your hands and say "oh well, let's just put up ads
and make millions".

> Your post actually started me thinking on this. A Freenet (for
> encryption and to avoid a [[:en:trusted client]] problem) or
> BitTorrent (for convenient distribution with a program lots of people
> have) method of distributing Wikipedia. A peer-to-peer network with
> WMF as the only body supplying content files. The downsides that
> spring to mind are (a) doesn't work through any old web browser (this
> is a big one) (b) trusted client problem (how to ensure rogue clients
> don't redistribute corrupted content in our name).
>
I was thinking something a la freenet without the anonymity (which is
what slows it down), and with digital signatures to ensure content
doesn't get corrupted.  Wikimedia servers would still have to do a
tiny bit of work, basically sign stuff and boostrap the peer lists.

It could be built, and for a lot less than 1.5 million.

Anthony


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

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

Jeroenvrp wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 21:42, schreef Brion Vibber:
>> JeroenVP for instance has made clear that he does not care about the
>> core values of Wikipedia at all (making knowledge available to the
>> public as free content) but only cares about not ever seeing anything he
>> perceives as an "advertisement".
>
> I assume the above statement is a way to polarise the discussion ever more and
> I will ignore these remarks.

It was meant to be a provocative opening statement, but it appears
accurate based on your actions and words last night and you have not
explained otherwise, so I continue to stand by these words.

>> It's about free/open educational content. It's about making materials
>> open and available for use by the public, including the creation of
>> derivative works and redistribution.
>
> Exactly, but you you miss the point completely Brion. It's advertisement at a
> location where the free content is CREATED, not redistributed/mirrored.
> Actually I don't care about if people make money with Wikipedia content, the
> same applies for Linux distributions, but we are talking about advertisement
> on the location where the content is created. That kills our reliability, so
> far we have that allready.

How? Please explain.

> It's not about business-models, websites, but
> about the source off the free content. Any connection to what kind of
> company, religion, political party, government, whatever... will harm one of
> the basic principles of this great project.

How? Please explain.

>> I do expect some people to leave; that's not because they're bad people.
>> But some people are going to discover, sooner or later, that they've
>> been chasing something *other* than free content, and that Wikipedia
>> isn't really the project for them after all.
>
> Hopefully it will be those people who endanger Wikipedia and such, like
> selling us out and don't have any respect for the community. The community
> who created Wikipedia and such.

Perhaps you missed it, but the foundation came from the community and is
made up of community members.

Perhaps you missed the last six years solid, where there have always
been disagreements within the community and communications problems
between different parts of it.

Me, I noticed. That's probably why I've been screaming for better
organization and communication in this fundraiser debacle.

Communication is the #1 problem facing us. Do you believe the best
response to this is to engage in edit wars?

I don't.

That's probably why I'm posting here instead of dropping the nukes and
blocking edit-warring sysops.

What good would it do other than piss people off?

- -- 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

iD8DBQFFlFZAwRnhpk1wk44RAqARAJ4h5tQpXmVZyBtq1u18StkJo46GjgCgnVNx
2rxKrYhtmrF3WK8U4eW7Ej8=
=YqTo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

body:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:29:30 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>Considering how many articles who's deletions are endorsed at DRV that
>obviously meet our standards, I'm having an awfully hard time shedding a
>tear over this one, especially when you and I both know that it can be
>sourced well with some effort.

A pity the effort has been devoted instead to arguing for its
retention despite its not meeting our standards, then.  I await with
baited breath the reliable external source for "big" in this context.

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


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
Thank you, Brion. You are not only wonderful because you keep the site
from falling flat on its butt, but because you write things like this.

-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


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Maybe what we should strive for is the
>> standard that would be required in a good academic paper.
>
> A good academic paper assumes quite a lot of prior knowledge.
> Wikipedia is intended for the layman, so we can't do that.

Not to mention a good academic paper has less stringent "reliable"
standards than a Wikipedia entry.  But we don't want to go there.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:57:06 +0000, Steve Block
<steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Is Requests for comments broken?  I'm curious as to how many people on
>the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one
>up a while now and had no outside input.

I looked at it (more than once).  I think that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has
some [[WP:OWN]] issues.

For what it's worth I also think the disputed text should be out
unless we can find an *independent* source for its significance and
interpretation.

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


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives

body:
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
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] alternatives


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] User Pages & Editing in Wikipedia

body:
Hello,

An overriding concern in the community, as regards who should be able to
edit in Wikipedia, appears to me to be the avoidance of elitism. I strongly
agree.

The strong concern I have with editing in Wikipedia is the accountability of
the editor. If a person joins a community they are accountable to that
community as well as to anyone that community effects. And, simply because a
person is a ?volunteer? on a project does not mean they should be held to
any lesser standard than one who is not.

I believe anyone who wishes to make edits to Wikipedia should have a single,
individual, registered User Name, User Page and a Talk Page. With this,
anytime a person makes an edit, creates a change, in the encyclopedia, their
User Name is recorded with that edit. Accountability. Trackability.

Presenting to the confidentiality concerns: There should be no requirement
as to content on the User Pages ? they can be blank if desired. What matters
is the accountability & trackability of that editor.

Marc Riddell


body:
On 12/28/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> There're no big systems even little bit similar to wikipedia, that
> are distributed. If you point me to any, I'd gladly review their
> ideas. Now there are none.
>
Oh well, let's just put up ads and make millions.

(Yes, that was sarcasm.  A distributed Wikipedia could be done, and it
could be done for less than 1.5 million.  That's my belief and I'm
sticking with it.  Just because something hasn't been done before
doesn't make it impossible.)


body:
On 12/28/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I believe anyone who wishes to make edits to Wikipedia should have a single,
> individual, registered User Name, User Page and a Talk Page. With this,
> anytime a person makes an edit, creates a change, in the encyclopedia, their
> User Name is recorded with that edit. Accountability. Trackability.
[snip]

The overwhelming majority of the edits are very minor.

Do we really need accountability for spelling corrections?
Does having a userpage (especially a blank one) really make anyone accountable?

If we make people who really don't want accounts get accounts, they
will just make a new one every time they edit. Perhaps they will
install a browser extension that automates this process. Will
communication really be improved?

Of course, we could go further.. mail a copy of your government issued
ID to the foundation before you can edit.. Then we might have some
accountability. But would that really help? Would it be worth the
costs?


body:
On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> (Yes, that was sarcasm.  A distributed Wikipedia could be done, and it
> could be done for less than 1.5 million.  That's my belief and I'm
> sticking with it.  Just because something hasn't been done before
> doesn't make it impossible.)

Then don't let those who say it can't be done stop you from doing it.
Show us the code.

(although when you have solved the underlying issues, there are folks
at major database companies who will likely want to pay you lots to
apply your solutions to their database products... and you'll lose
interest in this wiki stuff. :) )


from_name: Chris Picone

subject: [WikiEN-l] User levels proposal on Pump

body:
Sorry for the spam, but there's a proposal on Village Pump that I
would appreciate comment on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#New_permissions_level
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#New_permissions_level

Chris


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

Marc Riddell stated for the record:
>
> OK - I'm learning. There is very much of the technical aspects of Wikipedia
> I know nothing about. It may seem like grasping, but it's really trying to
> wrestle with, what I see is a large problem. But, I believe, with all of the
> human, intelligent resources within the Wikipedia community, a solution can
> be found. I'm just not willing at this point to leave it at "there's nothing
> that can be done".
>
> Marc

Any chance you could leave it at "we don't think the current situation
is a problem, and we don't want to change it"?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Young lady, in this house we obey the
 sean at epoptic.com | laws of thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFlF/H/SVOiq2uhHMRAkW5AJ4ojJhvdO3x/LkQEeTnkP5tjfd/+ACfRuiE
jv13wsvZs3LI6wiloZA1vFo=
=iUOO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 12/28/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> > (Yes, that was sarcasm.  A distributed Wikipedia could be done, and it
> > could be done for less than 1.5 million.  That's my belief and I'm
> > sticking with it.  Just because something hasn't been done before
> > doesn't make it impossible.)
>
> I believe achieving world peace for 1.5 million is quite feasible too.
> All you have to do is to redefine meanings for 'world' and 'peace'
> somewhere.
>
Fair enough, I'm certainly not in a position to tell you you're wrong.

> Same with 'distributed Wikipedia'. It is very easy to distribute it.
> It won't necessarily work as people are used to.
>
What about just the images?  They take up a lot of storage space, and
a lot of bandwidth.  How much could be saved just by distributing
those?

You seem to be coming at the problem with a defeatist attitude.  With
that attitude yes, it is impossible.

Anthony


from_name: David Strauss

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Even if Virgin's final goal is to own Wikipedia, their opinion remains
irrelevant. Their money doesn't come with terms beyond the matching
funds agreement.

If I offered you US$100 with no strings attached, you would (and should)
take it. Even if I had a secret plan to bankrupt you, that wouldn't
change the actual $100.

Jeroenvrp wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
>> But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
>> Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
>>
>> All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
>> before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
>> us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
>> least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
>> two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
>>
>> But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
>> care about controlling Wikimedia?
>
> That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin
> should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is
> multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will
> do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
>
> Jeroenvrp
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/259a8309/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Even if Virgin's final goal is to own Wikipedia, their opinion remains
irrelevant. Their money doesn't come with terms beyond the matching
funds agreement.

If I offered you US$100 with no strings attached, you would (and should)
take it. Even if I had a secret plan to bankrupt you, that wouldn't
change the actual $100.

Jeroenvrp wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
>> But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
>> Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
>>
>> All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
>> before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
>> us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
>> least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
>> two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
>>
>> But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
>> care about controlling Wikimedia?
>
> That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin
> should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is
> multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will
> do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
>
> Jeroenvrp
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/259a8309/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Even if Virgin's final goal is to own Wikipedia, their opinion remains
irrelevant. Their money doesn't come with terms beyond the matching
funds agreement.

If I offered you US$100 with no strings attached, you would (and should)
take it. Even if I had a secret plan to bankrupt you, that wouldn't
change the actual $100.

Jeroenvrp wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
>> But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
>> Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
>>
>> All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
>> before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
>> us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
>> least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
>> two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
>>
>> But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
>> care about controlling Wikimedia?
>
> That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin
> should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is
> multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will
> do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
>
> Jeroenvrp
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/259a8309/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Even if Virgin's final goal is to own Wikipedia, their opinion remains
irrelevant. Their money doesn't come with terms beyond the matching
funds agreement.

If I offered you US$100 with no strings attached, you would (and should)
take it. Even if I had a secret plan to bankrupt you, that wouldn't
change the actual $100.

Jeroenvrp wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 18:57, schreef Andrew Gray:
>> But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
>> Wikipedia, it's Virgin."
>>
>> All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
>> before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
>> us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
>> least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
>> two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.
>>
>> But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
>> care about controlling Wikimedia?
>
> That line should read: "one of the companies". Off course I don't think Virgin
> should be the only one, but one off the core businesses of Virgin is
> multi-media. That's why... and yes if you would asked me which companies will
> do everything to own Wikimedia, Virgin would be on that list.
>
> Jeroenvrp
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061228/259a8309/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > (Yes, that was sarcasm.  A distributed Wikipedia could be done, and it
> > could be done for less than 1.5 million.  That's my belief and I'm
> > sticking with it.  Just because something hasn't been done before
> > doesn't make it impossible.)
>
> Then don't let those who say it can't be done stop you from doing it.

As I've said, it *will* happen.  The forks *will* come, and one of
them *will* pick up on the idea.  Why don't *I* do it now, today?
Well, I don't have anywhere *near* 1.5 million, for starters.  I also
don't have those all important wikipedia domain names.

> Show us the code.
>
If you're really interested in seeing this achieved, contact me off
list.  This list isn't really the place to discuss the details,
especially as the management of the foundation isn't interested.

> (although when you have solved the underlying issues, there are folks
> at major database companies who will likely want to pay you lots to
> apply your solutions to their database products... and you'll lose
> interest in this wiki stuff. :) )

I doubt it.

Anthony


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
Hee hee, Brion, you never cease to amaze me....another fabulous post. You
must have been saving your quota for the end of the year. ;-)

On 12/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Brion. You are not only wonderful because you keep the site
> from falling flat on its butt, but because you write things like this.
>
> -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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


body:
> From: Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:37:14 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User Pages & Editing in Wikipedia
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> I believe anyone who wishes to make edits to Wikipedia should have a single,
>> individual, registered User Name, User Page and a Talk Page.
>
> Quite apart from the issue of anonymous contributors, your demand
> introduces additional problems.
>
> I operate two "bot" accounts; [[User:GurchBot]] and [[User:GurchBot 2]].
> So I'm already in violation of all the above things, I have three of
> everything (four, actually, as I have another account for testing blocks
> and the like). Both these bot accounts are used for high-speed
> maintenance work and so require a bot flag, which can only be set
> per-account; separate accounts are the only way to achieve this.
>
> So your demands would not only mean the end of anonymous editing (and a
> sharp decline in the amount of information added to Wikipedia) but also
> a complete rewrite of the bot policy and major changes to the way that
> the MediaWiki software works. And I haven't even touched on username
> changes, legitimate uses for alternate accounts, and a whole lot of
> other stuff. Your suggestion simply isn't workable.
>
> -Gurch
>
OK - I'm learning. There is very much of the technical aspects of Wikipedia
I know nothing about. It may seem like grasping, but it's really trying to
wrestle with, what I see is a large problem. But, I believe, with all of the
human, intelligent resources within the Wikipedia community, a solution can
be found. I'm just not willing at this point to leave it at "there's nothing
that can be done".

Marc
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


references:
<C1B99BA3.9B2%michaeldavid86@comcast.net>
	<e692861c0612281310v176acf98g4a7f0af400c6fbff@mail.gmail.com>
	<45943A12.5050901@btinternet.com>

body:
On 12/28/06, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> I know your suggestion isn't intended to be taken seriously, but *even
> that* wouldn't work. You're forgetting we don't all live in the same
> country; not everyone has one of these. In fact, given that users in
> certain countries are actually breaking the law by accessing Wikipedia,
> I'd keep the word "government" out of things altogether.

Yes, it was intended to make you want to vomit.
Thank you for understanding. :)


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] How do "deletionists" find articles to delete?

body:
On 28/12/06, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:

> The "prod" tag probably saves time in
> this respect. The only disadvantage with this is that it may cause
> good but inactive articles to get deleted simply because nobody
> removes an improperly added prod. That's why a "prod patrol" would be
> a good idea if there already isn't one.

This is easy and possible; the interested can always do so.

Thankfully, the process of undeleting a PROD is as lightweight as
placing a PROD - that is, an admin can Just Undelete. (Presumably an
editor would then want to improve the article so people wouldn't want
to PROD it again.)

> I,m sure that a common vision of "antideletionists" is of this geek
> with no life sitting around all day pressing the random button looking
> for deletable articles similar to the image of the antispammer sitting
> in front of his PC waiting for spam to come in so he can complain
> about it. (now of days he doesn't have to wait long :(

Anyone who thinks they're an "inclusionist" should do Special:Newpages
patrol some time. OH MY GOODNESS THE FIREHOSE OF CRAP!

- d.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 28/12/06, Lane, Ryan <Ryan.Lane at ocean.navo.navy.mil> wrote:
> Is there a good place to add a hook for this specific type of
> functionality? I've put one in OutputPage.php in the output() function
> above the section where the ajax javascript is added to the headers, and
> it seems to work for regular page views, and during previews.
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure exactly how this could affect other things.

ProfileMonitor uses the SkinTemplateSetupPageCss hook. This seems to
exist from 1.6.0 upwards. The extension is in Subversion.

Rob Church


body:
> > Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved
> > to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the
> > subscribers to foundation-l)
>
> That is very easy. The   "community" are the users who contribute on all
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Jeroenvrp

Hmm, I think you may be missing something pretty important.  In fact, the
definition of community is the single most difficult thing to agree upon.
What is my community, your community, etc. does not have answers.  The Board
retreat could not answer it with the 25 people who were there.  The Board
itself cannot agree on the meaning.  Certainly, though, you do not have the
hubris to think that this thing called Wikimedia exists only for editors, to
the exclusion of the millions of people who view it every day?  I view the
orthodox idea that the community consists of, and can only consist of,
editors as being at least as insulting as the opposite would be to Horning.
Millions of people *read* the site, and do not contribute a comma.  And
that's okay!   Generators *and* consumers of free culture must be
incorporated.  If we are philosophically opposed as people who differ on
whether a sound is made when a tree falls in  forest, so be it.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:59:41 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to mention a good academic paper has less stringent "reliable"
>> standards than a Wikipedia entry.
>
> No, I don't think it does

At least in my experience it does.  Of course, YMMV, bt I wrote plenty
of history papers that did quite well with "lower" standards than we allow.

> - or if it does it's not relevant.

I think it's relevant.  We're putting otrselves ahead of academia and
eliminating otherwise reliable sourcing as a result.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Xosé Martínez Díaz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Editing time statistics

body:
I can?t speak english good, but I can speak spanish and asturian. If you can
send me the mails in this language, I re-send the mails.
Thx and I'm so sorry!

>From: "David Still" <daveydweeb at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Editing time statistics
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:21:22 +1100
>
>Hi,
>
>The best statistics that I'm aware of would be these, which
>unfortunately don't appear to include the duration of visits/edits:
>http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm
>
>One thing you might want to consider is that some users also take to
>editing offline. It's not uncommon for people working on featured
>article candidates, or just generally copyediting, to print out the
>article and do much of the work offline. Similarly, a lot of time can
>be spent researching articles, which wouldn't be counted either.
>
>It'd be a very interesting kind of statistic to have, but
>unfortunately we'd only be able to measure one very arbitrary aspect
>of it: how long people tend to make rolling series of edits at
>Wikipedia. That wouldn't be a complete picture, and probably wouldn't
>be useful either. :(
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>On 12/29/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > First of all, I wish all of you a very happy new year.
> >
> > Now, my question:
> > Are there statistics on how much time users spend
> > editing wikipedia? For instance, when a user edits at
> > least once every 15-25 minutes for 10 hours, I would
> > say he/she spent 10 hours editing, which is cool.
> >
> > I saw people doing better, and regularly. These people
> > are the true pillars of wikipedia.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dpotop
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
?Est?s pensando en cambiar de coche? Todas los modelos de serie y extras en
MSN Motor. http://motor.msn.es/researchcentre/


body:
On 28/12/06, David Ashby <humble.fool at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Anyone who thinks they're an "inclusionist" should do Special:Newpages
> > patrol some time. OH MY GOODNESS THE FIREHOSE OF CRAP!

> Tangent: so the banning of IP article creation has totally failed in
> its stated goal, namely to cut back on the "FIREHOSE OF CRAP"?
> Interesting.  Perhaps it's time for a re-examination of that policy.

I would suggest so. Hopefully we should get the numbers after the
current fundraiser season is through.

- d.


from_name: cohesion

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On 12/28/06, Steve Block  wrote:
> Is Requests for comments broken?

I haven't completely given up on it, but it is kinda crappy. My big
complaint is that when you do want to go and comment, you end up on a
talk page with a million comments and no distillation of the issue. I
think that could be solved with a simple little template maybe. When
people are coming from RFC they don't really want to read ten thousand
words in my opinion...

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 12/28/06, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> David raises a good point. Don't judge Wikipedia articles by the quality
> of their contributors, but by the quality of the article - and the
> sources in particular. Never trust an unreferenced article. An article
> that provides a good number reliable, verifiable sources and is
> well-written should be considered in the same light whether it's written
> by anonymous users or long-time contributors. (Virtually all our
> articles are a mixture of both).

That an article provides quality looking sources is not a good metric
for article quality.

Unless the information is disputed or sounds far fetched, we make
little effort to ensure that the material in the article can actually
be found in the sources, even with inline references and
web-accessible sources. ... and far less is checked for offline
resources.

It wasn't clear to me if you were saying that people need to go as far
as checking the sources themselves if accuracy is important. If you
were, I apologise for misunderstanding you.

What are you basing your 'virtually all' claim on?

Last I checked, a large portion of our articles were not formally
sourced at all. So I don't see how virtually all could have quality
that comes from a mixture of good contributors and well documented
quality sources.


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <wikipedia at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> The road to daily advertisement has
> been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other
> ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to
> whoever has the money.

Would you be less upset if the Foundation had consulted the community
before agreeing to Virgin Unite's terms? I know this may not be a
practical scenario, but I'm curious.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Damian Finol

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Damian Finol wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
>>>>>> suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?
>>>>> Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
>>>>> a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
>>>>> income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
>>>>> need of cash" count?
>>>> No.
>>>> Did I really have to say that? ;-)
>>>
>>> Then take it as read ;-)
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
>>>
>>> Post your idea below:
>>>
>>> --->
>>>
>> Lobby the UN for Funds, I bet UNESCO might want to get involved given
>> the nature of the projects..
>>
>> That's all.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>>> - d.
>
> Yes.
>
> I am all for getting a recognition by the UN for example.
> Practically, I am trying to ask someone to get me in touch with someone,
> who in turn will get me in touch etc...
>
> Note that lobbying big organisations like this requires
> * having good contacts. Usually implies previously meeting these good
> contacts somewhere
> * money. These people are not waiting for us. We need to call them, we
> need to go and meet them. We need to participate conferences when they
> hang around. Ey, we even need to pay ourselves good clothes to meet them.
> * persistance. The people in charge of doing that need to dedicate a lot
> of time. Meanwhile...
>
> Do not get me wrong. Yes, it is a very good idea. The first step for the
> recognition was the audit. In which a *lot* of effort was put, precisely
> for this reason. The audit also took money and time.
>
> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Hey Ant,

That's really good, maybe we can get some help from the OLPC people?, I
remember some news and video about them being in really good standing
with the UN and other governments like Brazil's, India's and others for
the one laptop per child project. And I also heard they were going to
use Wikipedia as the encyclopedia on the laptop. Plus I remember them
being part of Wikimania 2006, so, if we are in good standing with them
and they are great people, maybe they can help us out getting in touch
with the right people at the UN?.

Just sayin'

Damian


from_name: Jeroenvrp

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Hello,

There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:

Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals
in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything
to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their ?250.000 is nothing compared to that.
Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these
kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these
kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.

It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement has
been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are other
ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media to
whoever has the money.

Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly
this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in
advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a village
pump.

Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about forks. A
lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving the
project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation,
backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or
don't want to understand the rules of free content.

These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about that.
Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the
quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening the
Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They will
see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you
Foundation; for selling us out!

Jeroenvrp
Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Jeroenvrp <wikipedia at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
> Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
>
> Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest multi-nationals
> in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do everything
> to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin.

(!)

I can get "Virgin is a multinational, which worries me", or "I am
worried we have given Virgin leverage" or stuff like that. I don't
agree with it, but it's a valid point to raise.

But this? "... one company that will really do everything to own
Wikipedia, it's Virgin."

All I can say is: you wouldn't have said that this time yesterday,
before people began making wild assumptions. Google would want to take
us over, perhaps. Encarta or Britannica might want to take us over, at
least to deal with a threat to the business plan. Any number of
two-bit "online content" people would jump at the chance.

But Virgin? Why on *earth* do you think Virgin, of all people, deeply
care about controlling Wikimedia?

> Their ?250.000 is nothing compared to that.
> Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has these
> kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer these
> kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
> Microsoft.

You know, we are perfectly capable of saying "no, that's a PR stunt,
we're not interested in helping you, go away". For all I know, we've
turned them down already; Danny is very insistent at ensuring we don't
become puppets for something like this. We make these things on our
terms. It may not be the best of terms, but we set them. We're not
stupid, and we have no intention of becoming shills.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> If they are matching contributions and supporting Wikimedia websites,
> its the call of our elected officials (who we voted to represent
> our views and act on our behalf).

But even within a representative democracy there must be a certain
level of public consultation. Unlike a representative democracy, a
manifesto was not put forth to be carried out by the candidates -- one
would expect more consultation.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> Sources can be checked. What I'm presenting to are the totally mindless,
> malicious vandal edits by totally anonymous fools who have complete access
> to the encyclopedia. Perhaps I am being naive, but I believe a named,
> accountable User Page would go a long way to ridding Wikipedia of them.
>
Yes, you are being naive. :-) Have you been back to look at the user
login creation page? Did you see anything there to keep you from
creating ten different user accounts, and pretending to be different
people on each of them? Rumor has it that even the God-King has a few
extra, so that he can move among his subjects incognito. :-)

In fact, we do now require logins to upload files, and take a look at
commons; every day there are a dozen logins created, each uploading a
few copyvios (OK, sometimes legit images), and then never seen again.
Pretty much zero accountability there.

Vandalism by anons is a nuisance, but it's so easily and quickly
countered that it's just not a major issue for maintenance.

Stan


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:24:39 -0700, "David Ashby"
<humble.fool at gmail.com> wrote:

>Tangent: so the banning of IP article creation has totally failed in
>its stated goal, namely to cut back on the "FIREHOSE OF CRAP"?

No, it's reduced it quite noticeably.  If you have to register a new
account and wait four days after your vanity article is deleted it
really can hold you up.  At least one individual has recently stated
that he'll take his vanity page to MySpace because it's miles better
(which, of course, it is, for vanity pages).

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


body:
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:28:26 +0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User Pages & Editing in Wikipedia
>
> On 28/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> OK - I'm learning. There is very much of the technical aspects of Wikipedia
>> I know nothing about. It may seem like grasping, but it's really trying to
>> wrestle with, what I see is a large problem.
>
>
> When you started this thread, I assumed you were an old Wikipedia hand
> who knew his stuff. That's probably a compliment ;-)

The material stuff in Wikipedia I can handle. It's the bots & blips and all
the behind-the-scenes computer stuff that makes my eyes cross and brings a
buzz to my brain that even Mary Jane can't match :-).
>
>
>> But, I believe, with all of the
>> human, intelligent resources within the Wikipedia community, a solution can
>> be found. I'm just not willing at this point to leave it at "there's nothing
>> that can be done".
>
>
> Mmm. I think that you may be asking the wrong question: that is,
> you're making the implicit assumption that a user page can be trusted
> to ascertain whether a contributor to a page knows their stuff.
>
> In practice, I don't think that's the case. On Wikipedia, the
> contributors are listed in the history, and someone I don't know other
> than a two-page detailed userpage is not necessarily a better writer
> than an anonymous IP that puts in well-written statements of fact with
> good checkable references.
>
> When a reader views a Wikipedia page, they need to apply critical
> thought to it, like they do to any web page. We can't take that
> requirement away from the reader (and become a "trusted" source). But
> with references, we can *enable* them to apply critical thought to
> Wikipedia.
>
> So it's all about the contributions themselves and the source material
> that backs the contributions up. The contributors themselves are not a
> focus at all. That's "no ownership of pages."
>
>
> - d.

Sources can be checked. What I'm presenting to are the totally mindless,
malicious vandal edits by totally anonymous fools who have complete access
to the encyclopedia. Perhaps I am being naive, but I believe a named,
accountable User Page would go a long way to ridding Wikipedia of them.

Marc
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

body:
I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost
ramp.  I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the
fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD
two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no
reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to
maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete
it as original research.

Since the AfD was started there have been only three edits to the
article, and the only sources added are of the same kind.  Am I really
completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and
satellite photos is original research?  I can't really see it as
anything else.

Ghost ramp is an interesting topic, but we do have these policies...

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
> community has a voice through our elected
> officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant
from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in
day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

body:
On 28/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Since the AfD was started there have been only three edits to the
> article, and the only sources added are of the same kind.  Am I really
> completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and
> satellite photos is original research?  I can't really see it as
> anything else.

I was going to just agree with you, but took a look at the article and
took a look at one of the maps in question:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.839503,-92.152655&spn=0.00826,0.023732&t=h&om=1

The map (which overlays a satellite photo) is pretty unambiguous. From
the map one can see the ghost ramp, and can determine its coordinates.
I could accept your point if we were talking about satellite photos
only. But maps are symbolic representations of space; they are
designed to be unambiguous and easily read.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
 "David Ashby" <x

> Tangent: so the banning of IP article creation has totally failed in
> its stated goal, namely to cut back on the "FIREHOSE OF CRAP"?
>
> Interesting.  Perhaps it's time for a re-examination of that policy.

Well, it is somehow logically possible that if IP number editors could create new articles, there would be no more bad articles created than now. On the other hand, it is more plausible that there would be even more. What do you think? Two or three times more? The restriction is in line with the 'soft security' policy/style, which is to have multiple filters each of which has some effect.

Charles

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder:
> 1) Did the foundation decide themselves to reward virgin unite with this
> banner, or was this a (politely worded request) from virgin unite?

I believe it was necessitated by a contract.

> 2) Have there been any donations by other companies of the same order of
> magnitude?
> 3) If so, wouldnt it be fair if we offer these other companies a banner for
> a day, on our own initiative? I also think of yahoo and kennisnet, who are
> supporting us heavily with servers and bandwidth.

No. If the company does not require that we put their logo at the top
of the page for the donation to be acceptable, we shouldn't. We should
thank the company, but in a less divisive, controvertial way. In a way
that isn't too close to advertising for some users.

> 5) Could the board please communicate all decisions which are sensitive
> among the wikipedians, timely to all relevent mailinglists?

I second this request.

> 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
> suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?

Not formally, I think.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> FWIW, I would see a donation from the Gates Foundation to be less of a
> PR stunt than a donation from Virgin Unite.  The Gates Foundation has
> pretty much nothing to do with Microsoft other than having the same
> founder.

And that they tend to donate, uh, Windows licenses.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


body:
On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> installed on the Cherokee Wikipedia.  Is there a page somewhere on meta
> for this purpose to request Brion to install the
> extension for editing in Sequoyah Syllabary?   I did not see a page for
> requesting extensions installed.  I know when I install
> extensions, I have to do it from the unix login and its not normally
> possible to install them from the web interface.

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org

Rob Church


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:

> 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
> suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?

Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
need of cash" count?

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


body:
On 28/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:

> Donations to WMF from 12/15/06 to 12/28/06:
> 2 people have given very large gifts ($25,000 and our anonymous matching
> donor)
> 49 people have given 500-10,000 USD ($67,594)
> 739 people have given 100 - 499 USD ($96,222)
> 1184 people have given 50-99 USD ($68,728)
> 2346 people have given 25-49 USD ($70,106)
> 5340 people have given 10-24 USD ($77,189)
> 4204 people have given 1-9 USD ($19,059)
> 891 people have given less than 1 USD ($481)

Yes. One thing very few people understand about fundraising is that it
works on a power law. A graph of donations per donor will show a very
few donors donating a substantial fraction of the takings.

And it is *usual* to thank them publicly and not to shy away from or
try to play down doing so.

- d.


body:
On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
> > > suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?

> > Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
> > a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
> > income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
> > need of cash" count?

> No.
> Did I really have to say that? ;-)

Then take it as read ;-)

Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!

Post your idea below:

--->

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] New ideas for fundraising needed. Start here!


from_name: Joe Anderson

body:
You could ask on websites which allow users to donate earned cash to charity
to add WMF as a charity.

UK review site, DooYoo, for example allows users to donate money they've
earned from writing reviews to charity.

On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
> > > > suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?
>
> > > Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
> > > a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
> > > income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
> > > need of cash" count?
>
> > No.
> > Did I really have to say that? ;-)
>
>
> Then take it as read ;-)
>
> Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
>
> Post your idea below:
>
> --->
>
>
> - 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
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

body:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:16:25 +0000, "Oldak Quill"
<oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

>The map (which overlays a satellite photo) is pretty unambiguous. From
>the map one can see the ghost ramp, and can determine its coordinates.
>I could accept your point if we were talking about satellite photos
>only. But maps are symbolic representations of space; they are
>designed to be unambiguous and easily read.

What's the map symbol for a ghost ramp?  What's the USDOT definition?

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


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
>
> Post your idea below:
>
> --->
>
I know that including ads is not a good idea. I'm against that. However,
what we have (and what costs money) is lots of traffic. Aside from ads
or fund-raisers, how can we convert traffic into revenue? 'Tis a puzzle...

-Rich


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Hoi,
If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with
a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only reason
why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that are
contrary to our principles. Accepting money is not against our principles.
Accepting money from organisations is not against our principles. Being
willing and able to say "thank you" is a gracious thing to do.

In my opinion you have to differentiate between donors and partners. A
partner is an organisation that shares the same goals and works together
with you in achieving these goals. A sponsor is an organisation that only
helps by providing resources to make things possible.

When people start talking in terms of "forking" it is an option that they
have. They should know that it is not easy to be successful at this. It
fractures the effort in bringing Free/Open content to the people that need
it most. The only way I think you will be successful is by bringing
something new to such a project. If Citizendium is to do well, there mix of
Wikipedia content and expert editing needs to hit the right balance. If all
you bring to your fork is this "anger", it may mean a temporary dip in the
number of edits for the WMF projects but the traffic of our projects will
only go up as a result.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a wonderful organisation. It achieved miracles
on a shoestring budget. Given the exponential growth, there is a growing
need and potential to make things happen. About many things we fantasise;
what can we do with one hundred million Euro. We could make so much more of
a difference. The question that we need to answer is, are we a complete
hostage to a group that insists on their values being adopted or are we to
bring information to all people of this world.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 12/28/06, Jeroenvrp <wikipedia at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There is much going on today. The community is split about the actions the
> Foundation took. Let me clarify something about Virgin Unite:
>
> Virgin Unite is a charity organisation of one of the largest
> multi-nationals
> in the world. If I can think about one company that will really do
> everything
> to own Wikipedia, it's Virgin. Their ?250.000 is nothing compared to that.
> Virgin Unite is just a PR-department. Almost every multi-national has
> these
> kind off charity organisations. What if the Gates Foundation will offer
> these
> kind of money? A lot of us will see that it is just a PR-stunt from
> Microsoft. That's why Virgin Unite is just pure advertisement for Virgin.
>
> It also creates a precedent to the future. The road to daily advertisement
> has
> been opened by a weak Foundation. Yes we need the money, but there are
> other
> ways. Rather no money than sell the basis principles of Wikipedia/-media
> to
> whoever has the money.
>
> Meanwhile the Foundation has tear apart a lot of local communities. Partly
> this could be avoided by informing the communities, at least a few days in
> advance. Every community had a local mailinglist, a sysop list and a
> village
> pump.
>
> Anyhow; a lot of people are angry. A lot of people are talking about
> forks. A
> lot of people, including a lot off the hardcore contributors, are leaving
> the
> project. Only because of these unintelligent actions from the Foundation,
> backed by a lot of misinformed people and people who don't understand or
> don't want to understand the rules of free content.
>
> These actions will have very negative consequences and I'm ashamed about
> that.
> Especially on the day the Dutch and Flemish media are reporting about the
> quarter of million articles on the Dutch language Wikipedia. This evening
> the
> Dutch Wikipedia will peak with a lot of new visitors and new users. They
> will
> see the advertisement and gone is the neutrality of the project. Thank you
> Foundation; for selling us out!
>
> Jeroenvrp
> Moderator on the Dutch language Wikipedia since oct 2003
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Hoi.
Wikipedia is only one of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 12/28/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> > Donations and management of funds are totally a foundation issue. The
> > community has a voice through our elected
> > officials. Write a letter to your congressman and express your views.
>
> Wikipedia doesn't have to be like this: we do not need to be distant
> from our elected representatives. We can, and should, take part in
> day-to-day decisions made by the Foundation.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the Gates Foundation is willing to provide the Wikimedia Foundation
> with
> > a substantial amount of money to help us achieve our aims, the only
> reason
> > why we should not accept this is when there are conditions attached that
> are
> > contrary to our principles.
> [snip]
>
> In IRC last night, Jeroenvrp asserted rather loudly that even if we
> were offered a trillion dollars we should not accept a *single*
> advertisement on our website.

Clearly Jeroenvrp knows that *I* should receive the trillion dollars.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Anthere

body:
Gatto Nero wrote:
> 2006/12/28, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:

>>>How communities can express their opinions about Foundation choose?
>>>Directly? (Oh My God, don't answer "Yes")
>>
>>By electing Board members, and by participating in community decision
>>processes (demanding more of those from time to time helps).
>
>
> By electing some of the Board members, who are really few. Really: how
> much member there are? Seven? I don't think they're representive at
> all, especially cause there are no regular elections (zum beispiel,
> once a year).

Sorry, but I really do not get it.

We are currently 7 on the board.
Amongst those 7 people, 5 are community members.
Jan-Bart and Michael are the only "outsiders", and god, are they precious !

Jimbo, arguably, is a community member. He has been the heart of the
project since the very begining of Wikipedia, nearly 6 years ago.

Erik joined the project in 2002. I joined the project in early 2002. I
am not sure when Oscar and Kat joined, but I would say they have been
there for at least 2 years.
Erik and I were elected to be on the board. Kat and Oscar were
appointed, but they were candidates number 2 and 3 of the last
elections, which make them imho, half-elected, half-appointed members.
In any cases, Kat and Oscar are both people you know and who have
received huge support at last elections.

That makes 4 people amongst 7 as being the nearest thing we can think in
terms of representation. Plus Jimbo, who frankly, does not deserve to be
told he does not listen to community feedback.

Elections are not frequent ? Of course they are not. It takes a lot of
time and effort to organise an election, and being elected for 1 month
does not make ANY sense. So, there is no way we can make elections more
frequently than once a year.

I would like to add that the board recently took a very bold stance,
written in the bylaws themselves, to garantee there will ALWAYS be a
majority of community people on the board.

These people are meant to be your representants.

Anthere


body:
On 12/28/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Dedalus <dedalus at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> > Somebody else mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's in
> the
> > press they would like to raise the level of primary and secondary
> education
> > in the US. Wikiversity and or Wikibooks might be helpful in raising the
> > level of education there and elsewhere. Suppose the Bill and Melinda
> Gates
> > Foundation would like to grant some money to WMF on the condition that
> it
> > would be for specific projects, e.g. Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would
> that
> > raise any objections by anyone?
>
> Not by me. Also, the charge that the current message is an advertisement
> sounds bizarre to me
> since no product or service is even mentioned, let alone pushed.

>From Wikipedia: "*Advertising* is paid communication through a non-personal
medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled.
Variations include publicity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity>, public
relations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations>, product
placement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement>,
sponsorship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship>,
underwriting<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spots>,
and sales promotion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_promotion>."

Hmmmmmm.

The message is simply an acknowledgement of a very generous donation that is
> linked to the amount
> of money our readers can give in a day; this is an inducement to donate.
> It is NOT an inducement
> to buy any product or service of Virgin Unite or the Virgin group of
> companies.
>
> This is no different than the sponsorship messages seen or heard on the
> non-profits NPR and PBS.

Right. Those, too, are ads.


from_name: Teun Spaans

subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
In addition to Jeroens post, I agree with him that a borderline seems to
have been crossed. We never mentioned the name of any other company on the
top of any page. I regret this form of advertisement, but wont cancel my
contribution, like many others. The borderline between sponsorship and
advertisement is razorthin, especially with virgin unite, which is viewed by
some as an advertisement agency for the company.

I wonder:
1) Did the foundation decide themselves to reward virgin unite with this
banner, or was this a (politely worded request) from virgin unite?
2) Have there been any donations by other companies of the same order of
magnitude?
3) If so, wouldnt it be fair if we offer these other companies a banner for
a day, on our own initiative? I also think of yahoo and kennisnet, who are
supporting us heavily with servers and bandwidth.
4) The example of virgin unite will invite other charities and companies to
also barter for a banner - or more. Did the foundation board write up for
themselves any guidelines how far they want to go in the matter of
sponsoring and advertisement (remember that sponsoring is just a form of
advertisement)
5) Could the board please communicate all decisions which are sensitive
among the wikipedians, timely to all relevent mailinglists?
6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?

teun


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


body:
On 12/27/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Danny gave a very good speech about this in the Wikimedia IRC channel. He
> said that since we don't do advertising, we are giving up on tens of
> millions of dollars a year.

Wikimedia is also giving up millions of dollars a year by not going into the
porno industry, too.

Now that we need money, we have Virgin Unite
> kind enough to offer some really cool matching. Mentioning them in the
> Sitenotice is our way of saying "thank you for being so awesome."

I guess the advertising is working.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 28/12/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:

> You said: 4 of 7 members, 5 of 7 members. Nice, but that's not 7 of 7,
> and I think this is the first problem.

You are actually completely and utterly wrong here. You need outsiders
on a board for perspective.

- d.


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com>
> Organization: Boskonia
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:22:31 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User Pages & Editing in Wikipedia
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marc Riddell stated for the record:
>>
>> OK - I'm learning. There is very much of the technical aspects of Wikipedia
>> I know nothing about. It may seem like grasping, but it's really trying to
>> wrestle with, what I see is a large problem. But, I believe, with all of the
>> human, intelligent resources within the Wikipedia community, a solution can
>> be found. I'm just not willing at this point to leave it at "there's nothing
>> that can be done".
>>
>> Marc
>
> Any chance you could leave it at "we don't think the current situation
> is a problem, and we don't want to change it"?

Who is we?

M
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | Young lady, in this house we obey the
> sean at epoptic.com | laws of thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFlF/H/SVOiq2uhHMRAkW5AJ4ojJhvdO3x/LkQEeTnkP5tjfd/+ACfRuiE
> jv13wsvZs3LI6wiloZA1vFo=
> =iUOO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
No.
Did I really have to say that? ;-)

On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/12/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 6) Has there ever been an open call to all wikipedians to provide
> > suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to receive money?
>
>
> Does continuously saying "our traffic level is stupidly high and costs
> a fortune / everyone at our web ranking has an actual budget and
> income stream / we're operating on a shoestring / we're desperately in
> need of cash" count?
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
Great post. Thank you.

Danny

In a message dated 12/28/2006 7:31:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rfrangi at libero.it writes:

I've  just had a great idea.

For the next fundriasing WMF says: "to run our  projects we need to raise X$
in the next two weeks." Without doublings, ads,  and stuff.

If after 2 weeks the sum raised is less than the X$ needed,  the Foundations
says: "You didn't gave us enough money. Can we put  ads?"

If the answer is no, just shut the whole damn thing  down.

Sometimes people needs a slap in the face to understand.

Roberto (Snowdog)


from_name: Dedalus

body:
Tomorrow the Virgin Unite will not longer be present as a sitenotice. Today
jeroen and others complained about that sitenotice. In his words the
community would have been split. The current fundraiser raises today an
additional several 100k US dollar, so that is gain one. Concerning the Dutch
Wikipedia, today over 250 persons registered a username. So the Dutch
Wikipedia today gains that many new users and maybe loose temporarily (I
doubt definitely) one or two well known users.

Somebody else mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's in the
press they would like to raise the level of primary and secondary education
in the US. Wikiversity and or Wikibooks might be helpful in raising the
level of education there and elsewhere. Suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation would like to grant some money to WMF on the condition that it
would be for specific projects, e.g. Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would that
raise any objections by anyone?

In short, I believe Brad Patrick and his team are doing a perfect job to
keep the WMF and the websites up and running.

Dedalus