Re: About transparency

On 12/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...> wrote:
> For example, I assume it is not the case that
> >> the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
> >>
> >> Derrick Farnell
> >
> > It is a good question.
> >
> > Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to
> >  add advertisements 
> >
> > But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to
> >  introduce ads.  Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to
> > request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads
> > placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and
> > then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so
> >  much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced
> >  by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
> >
> > "Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal
> > perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical
> > perspective.
> >
> > I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my
> > position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to
> > this.
> >
> > Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize
> > that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not
> > be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is

Re: wikicouncil

Marc Riddell wrote:
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>> on 12/30/07 11:46 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@... wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is
>>>> community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter
>>>> meeting and no satisfactory solution was found.
>>>>
>>> Florence,
>>>
>>> This is a rather critical question here in the Project. References to
>>> "Community", "the Community", "Community Member(s)", etc., are made nearly
>>> every day throughout the various communications. When you worked on the
>>> problem a year ago, what was the final conclusion as to a definition of
>>> "Community" as relates to the Projects?
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell
> 
> on 12/31/07 6:26 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@... wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately, not satisfying answer. Community is too amorphous a concept.
>>
>> In its largest meaning, community is "human population". The people we
>> are working to create content for.
>>
>> Some, in particular with regards to elections, consider that "community"
>> is "every person interested in what we are doing". This will be a reason
>> why some will consider that Larry Lessig, though not a participant of
>> our projects, though not knowing anything of our internal workings, is a

Re: A dangerous precedent

IF that is true then so be it. But do not go around and force your 
ideals upon others.

Waerth

> Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 22:44:14 schrieb Andrew Whitworth:
>   
>> that the members of the smaller projects are most angry with. en.wp
>> and de.wp are using bot translated articles.
>>     
>
> WRONG PLAIN WRONG!
>
> Repeat:
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.

Re: A dangerous precedent

Can we all be nice for a bit?

-Dan

On 1/1/08, Waerth <waerth@...> wrote:
>
> IF that is true then so be it. But do not go around and force your
> ideals upon others.
>
> Waerth
>
> > Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 22:44:14 schrieb Andrew Whitworth:
> >
> >> that the members of the smaller projects are most angry with. en.wp
> >> and de.wp are using bot translated articles.
> >>
> >
> > WRONG PLAIN WRONG!
> >
> > Repeat:
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.
> > de.wikipedia does not have bot generated articles.

Re: A dangerous precedent

Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 22:25:26 schrieb iloveplankton:
> Wow, you've sure got a lot of bent up angry going on, don't you? I'm
> sure it was simple mistake, there is no need to call somebody a liar.

I wouldn't have been so angry if this were the first time. Actually several 
people pointed out this fact on this very list even in this thread.

So if someone still just says that de.wikipedia has bot generated articles 
cause he can't imagine that nearly 690'000 articles can be created otherwise 
he acted in bad faith or at least should read first and then write but not 
the other way round.

Arnomane

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A dangerous precedent

Daniel Arnold wrote:
> Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 22:25:26 schrieb iloveplankton:
>   
>> Wow, you've sure got a lot of bent up angry going on, don't you? I'm
>> sure it was simple mistake, there is no need to call somebody a liar.
>>     
>
> I wouldn't have been so angry if this were the first time. Actually several 
> people pointed out this fact on this very list even in this thread.
>
> So if someone still just says that de.wikipedia has bot generated articles 
> cause he can't imagine that nearly 690'000 articles can be created otherwise 
> he acted in bad faith or at least should read first and then write but not 
> the other way round.
>
> Arnomane
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so maybe it wasn't a simple mistake. Ignore my ignorance.

ILovePlankton

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A dangerous precedent

How is it that you can be so certain that out of 690,000 articles,
that none of them have been bot-generated? Are you positive? Have you
seen all 690,000?

The declaration that de.wikipedia has absolutely 0 bot-generated
articles, or 0 articles that were originally bot-generated and have
since been human-edited seems overly pretentious to me. A better
display of good faith would be for you to assume that possibility that
at some point a bot has created an article on de.wp. It's certainly
not an unreasonable assumption by any stretch.

--Andrew Whitworth

On Jan 1, 2008 11:54 AM, Daniel Arnold <arnomane@...> wrote:
> Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 22:25:26 schrieb iloveplankton:
> > Wow, you've sure got a lot of bent up angry going on, don't you? I'm
> > sure it was simple mistake, there is no need to call somebody a liar.
>
> I wouldn't have been so angry if this were the first time. Actually several
> people pointed out this fact on this very list even in this thread.
>
> So if someone still just says that de.wikipedia has bot generated articles
> cause he can't imagine that nearly 690'000 articles can be created otherwise
> he acted in bad faith or at least should read first and then write but not
> the other way round.
>
> Arnomane
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list

Re: A dangerous precedent

Hi guys,

The question of whether or not the Volap̈uk Wikipedia should be
cleaned up, moved, deleted, or whatnot is obviously one a lot of
people seem to care about.  As I've stated before, however—and perhaps
I was being too subtle, though I can't really imagine how—this is
absolutely not something that should be decided on Foundation-l.  (I
really don't think it's appropriate for any mailing list, but that's
for other list administrators to decide.)

There is currently a proposal on meta for a specific action regarding
vowiki, which is what precipitated this thread.  If you feel strongly
about this issue, please vote now.  If you have any insightful
comments to make, please make them on the appropriate wiki page.

If you want to discuss, in general, the criteria for creating a wiki
for Wikipedia in another language, or whether bot-generated articles
are fine for Wikipedia in a particular language, or anything else
which can be broadly interpreted as relevant to the operation of the
Wikimedia Foundation, please create a separate thread for civil
discussion on that point alone.  Many good points have been made in
this thread, but in this context little good will come of them, if for
no other reason than that most sensible people have stopped reading it
by now.

tl;dr /thread

Austin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list

My 10 wishes list for 2008

Dear all,

In my country, as well as in many countries (though not all), today is 
the first day of the new year. First of all, as is traditional, let me 
present my [[edit:wishes]] to all of you. I hope you will be in good 
health, will meet many successes, and will have fun in what you are doing.

Second, I would like to share with you my wikimedia-related-stuff wish 
list. I am pretty sure we will not all have the same, not even amongst 
board members, but here is my list anyway. As it is not a good idea to 
be too greedy, I limited myself to 10 wishes.

1. Quality
2. Promotion of lesser known projects
3. Software development
4. License, international laws and compatibility
5. Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility
6. Wikicouncil
7. Chapters and general assembly
8. Board membership, election
9. financial sustainability, controls and independance
10. Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive 
authority

1. Quality
Quality has two sides. First, content should actually be of quality 
(accuracy, completeness, up-to-date information, and ease of reading). 
And second, content should actually be perceived as of quality.

Several communities have made great efforts to improve quality, with for 

Promotion of lesser known projects

> From: Florence Devouard <anthere@...>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] My 10 wishes list for 2008

> 2. Promotion of lesser known projects
> Whilst Wikipedia has probably reached the top of its fame in the press
> of many nations, and enjoys the largest communities, other wikimedia
> projects are being increasingly successful. Commons has now over
> 2.000.000 free objects and is a unique case of multilingual
> community-based project. The largest Wiktionary is not english speaking,
> but french-speaking, a unique situation in wikimedia project and
> probably a showcase for the francophony. Wikibooks now hosts several
> high quality books, and also receive as donations, books originally
> under regular copyright protection and released under a free license,
> again, showcases of the interest of the educational world for the free
> movement.
> I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the
> Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press
> release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific
> technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.

One can add de.Wikisource which is a project making historical Public
Domain texts in German available with high quality standards. These
standards are NOT (yet) shared by the other Wikisource projects, see
also

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#The_huge_leap

Only de.Wikisource demands scanned texts (or digital photos) for
contributions, most other Wikisource branches have a lot of texts
which are unsourced. De.Wikisource has notes commenting the texts for