She was talking about Michael and Eric leaving the board (damn it) and then
said,
?I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly
made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch
professionals, who can do mistakes ??.., but who can breath and pee
wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love,
without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized
organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
******
There was a point I made that got lost in the shuffle: these are not
necessarily binary choices. I suggest we look very carefully at the subset
of volunteer contributors who also have the career experience suitable for
board membership.
-Durova
>
>>> Wikipedia is not, and should not attempt to be, a news source. If
>>> you
>>> can't
>>> accept that news coverage is incomplete and *not encyclopaedic*
>>> then you
>>> don't understand the differences between the projects.
>>>
>>> I don't want to get dragged into a prolonged flame war on the
>>> subject, but
>>> I
>>> agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy that Wikipedia should not
>>> try to
>>> act as a news source.
>>>
>>> Someone dies? The facts (date/time/cause) go on Wikipedia. The obit
>>> goes
>>> on
>>> Wikinews.
>>>
> Speaking as a former reporter (and still a sometime journalist), I
> respect the distinction Brian is trying to make here. To me, the
> problem is partly enforcement (I don't want to add a new restriction
> on Wikipedia contributions) and partly user satisfaction. I think this
> is less an issue of project rivalry than one of simply trying to
> address how users actually use the projects. I know from experience
> that en.wiki users value the up-to-dateness of Wikipedia entries
> regarding breaking news. I think this particular user community
> (en.wiki) would like for that usefulness to continue, and I would be
> saddened to see a new class of edit wars start based on whether this
> or that addition should be in Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. What I
> would like to see more of is Wikipedia articles citing Wikinews as a
> source.
>
> ---Mike
Thats the problem...well one. Wikipedia will not use us as a source. The
only time we got to be a "source" is when Chris Benoit, the wrestler,
killed his family and some user posted it on WP 14 hours before it was
supposed to have happened, and even the source on WP was just the
article's talk page.
We have a template or two on WP such as {{Wikipediapar}} but I think
that its not enough. For one, I don't fully understand why WP won't
allow Wikinews as a source...and of the 2 years I been on WM...I have
yet to get a logical answer.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
This thread is based on a comment Florence made on that
update in board of trustees membership
thread above
She was talking about Michael and Eric leaving the board (damn it) and then
said,
“I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly
made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch
professionals, who can do mistakes …….., but who can breath and pee
wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love,
without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized
organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Now we probably all agree that one or the other is not taking the best from
both old institutions. But WMF projects have proved that a new one has been
born. The idea of a Head Office and National and local chapters might be OK
for Rotary and its like, but looking at WMF projects, this is not how the
new one works, so I thought it should be made clear.
We live at a time when global groups will gather around an article and edit
the hell out of one at a time, coming to a consensus and understanding (of
sorts) about it’s meaning. Which makes a nice change from having bureaucrats
get on planes to attend talk fests and then say, “We’ve agreed to keep
talking” as the ones in Bali just have. The change in the ways WMF-inspired
communities organize themselves has proved that a bureaucracy “delivering
policy” is just a figment of the dimming past. It’s by talking on threads
like this where the belief in “top down” organisation just evaporates.
(Constantly reading about CEO’s being rewarded for their incompetence or
dishonesty doesn’t hurt either).
Let’s face it, in a democracy all leaders are amateurs. That’s what the
concept means. At the same time we want to make sure that they get the best
professional advice. If the rest of the English speaking world learns what
we’ve just learnt in Australia, when you only talk to PLU (people like us,
professionals like us) then “sorry mate you’re out”; our PM even lost his
own seat, which shows how irrelevant he’d become.
The main thing is that we have global groups for each of the functions
required by an org; each board member of which will keep us across their own
learning (like a meeting with a Minister of culture which became a private
thing). The detail stuff will occasionally get stuffed up, but if a Board
member doesn’t make a doozy (like winning a war and losing its peace), then
OK, let them just admit it’s a mistake and let’s move on. So long as we
remember as a group and don’t let it happen again.
Now Florence might fear Knol as “probably our biggest threat since the
creation of Wikipedia”. But it can only be that if one thinks that
aggregating content is the main aim of the WMF (around which ads might be
wrapped). I just can’t see that it is. And Florence doesn’t either. As Milos
says “.…the community is confused and it needs answers. At least, how do
*you* (Board members) see WMF in the next two or five years? If you are not
possible to make a collective statement, please make personal statements”. I
thought it was a great invitation to find a way of settling on a shade of
grey, which would help blacks and white gain an understanding, if not a
consensus.
So at this (Christmas) time can I just second Milos’ motion and ask that we
all take a step back and talk to our children and friends until the New
Year. Ultimately we are building a Next Generation Network, today. To be
clear HYPERLINK
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Networking"http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Networking. If that’s the case, then we are
talking about how little groups like this communicate, not how they
aggregate stuff at huge portals. Every country has a National Research and
Education Network which contain engineers and course builders who would love
to help our wiki-orientated content builders. They all communicate, just
like us, in little groups of interest. Trouble is, their correspondence gets
buried, like here.
Merry Christmas. Simon.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1188 - Release Date: 17/12/2007
2:13 PM
RE: Open Education Declaration
For those members who would like to edit the declaration, there is a copy in
WMF’s Aunty’s site. HYPERLINK
"http://wikieducator.org/Open_Education_Declaration"http://wikieducator.org/
Open_Education_Declaration
Like all articles, this is a living document which is yet to see the
benefits of this list’s professional editors.
It can’t be hosted on Wikipedia just yet due to our NPOV policy. For an
explanation see HYPERLINK
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonfj"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/User_talk:Simonfj
But give it time.
Merry Christmas
simonfj
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1187 - Release Date: 16/12/2007
11:36 AM
+our goal is to spread this knowledge freely to all humanity. People
knowing of our existence is a prerequisite to them using our
knowledge.
+We get attention, and hence donations
Your point on immediatism is a problem for WP, but is the whole
purpose of WN. If more contributors were aware of the split here, and
tried to keep "breaking news" on WN, and then moved to WP after the
story has settled down and the page been locked, then there would be
less of a problem and more inter-project coordination. Breaking news
simply is not, and should not be, the purview of Wikipedia.
--Andrew Whitworth
******
How many people are aware of this view? There's an "in the news" template
on Wikipedia's main page that links into the Wikipedia story. Neither that
template nor anything on the "2007 Pakistani state of emergency" article
directs the reader to Wikinews.
-Durova
>>> Ah ... clearly not taking enough steriods* and growth hormone then!
>> That may explain poor British athletic performance. They've been
>> taking
>> steriods, while thinking they were steroids.
There seems to be a Law of the Universe requiring any message that
includes a complaint about someone else's spelling error to contain a
spelling error itself. It's eerie -- possibly a proof of God's
existence or something.
--Mike
Allison writes:
> This is, clearly, good and sensible practice. I am, however, noting
> that
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings is clearly targeted
> at a
> world-wide base of possible applicants. How would a USA-based
> organisation
> (such as the firm you have retained) be able to carry out any criminal
> checks for such applicants outwith the USA? In the case of the UK,
> and I
> am sure other European and World countries, such information is not
> freely
> available to others than the law enforcement organisations of those
> countries.
There are USA-based firms that do international criminal background
checks, and the firm we have retained is one of these. We are also
aware (and I for one am fairly acutely aware) of the difference in
privacy regulation among the various nation-states.
Certainly an applicant from a nation-state with different privacy laws
could game the background-check system to some extent, but we hope
this doesn't happen too often. What we're obligated to do under state
and federal law is "due diligence" with regard to background checks --
we are not obligated to be perfect (no one is), and if information is
unavailable to us because of another nation's privacy laws, the
critical question is not whether we get it or not, but whether we do
what any reasonable company in the same or similar circumstances would
do. Moreover, we are obligated under U.S. law to take pains that
personnel background checks are not disclosed to unauthorized persons.
> Or is it intended that only US-citizens could be accepted for
> any staff position with the WMF?
This must be more of that UK irony stuff I've been hearing about from
Thomas. As an American, I am forbidden by international law to
understand it, because I know sports better.
--Mike
>
>
I just realized that this email I sent 4 days ago, apparently never made
it through. Sending it again.
Summary (en): I shared lunch with the minister of culture and
communication in France, last friday, with a handful of big french web
2.0 companies. Overall feedback from her was good.
I provided a longer report privately :-)
Ant
--------
Aujourd'hui, j'ai déjeuné avec Mme Albanel, actuelle ministre de la
culture et de la communication en France, et une demi-douzaine de
personnes, dirigeant les majors de l'internet français (François
Bourdoncle (Exalead); Tariq Krim (Netvibes); Didier Rappaport
(Dailymotion); Nicolas Vanbremeersch (Versac.net/Spintank); Pierre
Kosciosko-Morizet (PriceMinister); le directeur de cabinet adjoint
(Christophe Tardieu) et Laurent Ladouari (conseiller technique auprès de
la ministre).
L'objectif était une discussion ouverte sur le web 2.0, dans la lignée
des décisions récentes (Olivennes, taxe sur les revenus publicitaires en
ligne etc...) et futures (LCEN).
Le déjeuné était tout à fait informel. Après une brève prise de vue par
TF1, nous avons partagé un repas, en petit comité, pendant environ 2
heures. Les sujets évoqués ont tourné autour des aspects création de
contenu, responsabilité des auteurs et hébergeurs, respect des lois
nationales et au-delà, liberté d'expression et censure, accès à
l'information, fracture culturelle entre Paris/région parisienne et la
province, possibilité de limiter les restrictions d'usage et de réusage
des oeuvres produite par les pouvoirs publics, financement des musées
français, bibliothèques numériques, taxe sur les revenus publicitaires,
multilinguisme et rayonnement de la culture française dans le Monde,
nouveaux modèles économiques sur internet, contenu illégal et piratage,
procès contre Daily Motion, Knol, et j'en passe.
Mme la ministre m'a semblé très réceptive, et des suivis doivent se
faire sur divers sujets avec certains des convives.
(et oui, j'ai signalé à Mme la ministre que nous n'avions pas de photo
d'elle...).
Hier, Pierre et moi avons passé une bonne partie de la journée dans les
bureaux de l'ICOM, pour discuter d'une possible course à suivre, pour
l'intégration de photos d'objets ethnographiques dans wikimedia commons.
Florence