In a message dated 11/24/2010 3:56:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> Try http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php
>
> plug in values "en", "Deaths in 1970" and "American Actors".
>
Articles that are under American Actors and under Deaths in 1970:
no matches!
Hi everyone,
This week we're forgoing Office Hours due the U.S. Thanksgiving
holiday, but a week from today on Wednesday December 1, I will be
hosting an IRC discussion of the planning for Wikipedia's 10th
anniversary. From 16:00-17:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office, we'll have an
open meeting to cover the organizing underway to celebrate the
encyclopedia's first decade. Please attend if you're even remotely
curious about attending or volunteering for one of the 39 events
currently listed on ten.wikipedia.org.
As usual, instructions for accessing the chat and links to other
resources, such a time converter, are available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
Thanks,
Steven Walling
Wikimedia Foundation Fellow
(wikimediafoundation.org)
In a message dated 11/24/2010 3:29:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
> Could it de done with a Category: 1970 Deaths - Actors, or some such
> thing?
>
> Marc
>
Evidently the phrase "Category: 1970 Deaths" is not indexed. Try it, and
see if you get anything. I got zip on doing that.
Would this project answer the question I am trying to address today?
"Which American actors died in 1970?"
There does not appear to me, to be any obvious way of using the built-in
search engine to answer this question. Searching for "Actor 1970" generates a
lot of false positives, an overwhelming number.
Is there no way to find the intersection of two categories ?
W
I don't know why they would think that. I mean, we obviously already have the tech to insert advertisements ... and do; at least ads for the fundraiser.
John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Fine grained control over which banners appear on which pages would
>also result in the community being extremely worried that WMF is
>gearing up to run ads on content pages.
>
>On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Being able to serve mainspace banners specified by geolocation and/or
>> article category and/or language edition would open up a whole new level of
>> fundraising potential. That would allow you to get local celebrities (who
>> are otherwise not especially popular/known outside their
>> city/state/country/language) to provide endorsements that are quite
>> targeted. For example in countries where there is a very popular sport with
>> a local team (NFL in America, premier league in UK) you could fundraising
>> banners on a per-city basis with local sports stars encouraging people to
>> support Wikimedia. I suspect that this is something where the Chapters would
>> be particularly useful in contacting and negotiating with the relevant
>> people.
>>
>> More fine-grained control over articlespace banners (with good policy about
>> how/who/when these should be used) would also make it much easier to run
>> real-world events and enable us to contact Wikip/media readers in a targeted
>> way (not just with geonotices served to the Watchlist, which by definition
>> only is able to contact existing editors).
>>
>> However, I suspect that this goes in the "ideas for next year" basket.
>> -Liam
>>
>> wittylama.com/blog
>> Peace, love & metadata
>>
>>
>> On 23 November 2010 22:16, Fajro <faigos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How about NBA players?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fajro
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We were chattering about having Stephen Hawking do a funraising banner
(Trevor made up one), and speculating how well they'd do. You could even
serve up diffferent banners based on the categories. If it's a page about
physics, serve up the Hawk banner. If science fiction, Charles Stross or
whomever else. If they visit the Angelina Jolie page, they get to see the
Angelina Jolie banner. Who knows?? Maybe we could make it COOL to have a
Wikipedia fundraising banner, just like it was COOL to be a guest on the
Muppet Show, or it's COOL to have your own animated character on The
Simpsons. I'm thinking that a short video clip like "I'm Freeman Dyson and
I want you to support wikipedia.".
Seems like something that could easily be tested.
In a message dated 11/22/2010 2:10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia(a)frontier.com writes:
> They aren't - as a
> member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia
> Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for
> expenses.
So auditing is now about confidence ?
Something seems wrong with an audit committee who is trusting who they are
auditing. Isn't the very point of auditing, to not have trust and blind
faith?
Hello,
A coincidence: last weekend, in Germany and the Netherlands both the
winners of photo contests were made public. In Germany the Zedler
Medaille jury gave no first and second prize, while in the Netherlands
the competition Wiki loves monuments honoured quite a number of
winners.
(In English about the Dutch gathering:
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/mini-conference-in-utrecht/ )
Maybe the Zedler criteria were not made clear enough to the
participants, I don't know. In the Dutch case, I was stunned and
positively impressed by the straight forward application of three
simple criteria: the picture had to be clear (focused etc.),
encyclopedic and beautiful.
The Dutch winner is this picture:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Amsterdam_-_Vijzelstraat_27-35_%28hals…
It may not meet the requirements of a purely technically or
esthetically oriented jury. But it has great encyclopedic value. It
shows the monument, a 17th century building in Amsterdam, in its
actual modern use. On the right, you see an old picture of how the
building looked like earlier. The advertisement for light bulb and the
gentlemen dressed in modern leisure related fashion fix the picture
into our modern times.
Kind regards
Ziko
--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:31:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia(a)frontier.com writes:
> On 11/22/2010 10:47 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org writes:
> >> * I believe "Salary and other compensation" includes payment to
> >> contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't
> >> counted as employees).>>
> > Why so many, and contractors generally make much more than employees.
> > Why not get rid of some of those and hire more employees?
> > I know of a lot of people looking for work.
> And I know of some positions they're welcome to apply for if they have
> suitable qualifications: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
>
> Aside from that, staffing decisions are not simply something that gets
> flipped around at will. In some cases, Wikimedia contractors have that
> status because it would be prohibitively difficult to treat them as
> employees (some staff located abroad, for example). Others are hired for
> specific time-limited projects which it makes more sense to do on a
> contract basis (Eugene Eric Kim for the strategy project, for instance).
>
> Also, the notion that contractors "generally make much more than
> employees" seems to ignore the fact that this bucket is labeled "Salary
> *and other compensation* " (meaning things such as health or retirement
> benefits).
How does 20-30 contractors equate to the 10 open positions listed? It
seems short to me.
I don't see what logic there is in stating that having an employee abroad
is "prohibitively difficult" but it's not so if they are a contractor. That
makes no sense to me.
If WMF is truly adding wages paid to contractors into the "Salary and other
compensation" bucket I don't think this is G.A.A.P.
Wages paid to contractors should not be treated the same as salary paid to
employees for the purpose of annual reports like this. That is, they should
not be lumped together in this sort of bucket.
In fact that is one of the very advantages (treating them differently) that
many companies use to make their statements adhere more closely to their
desired public image.
W
.JPG){kind=link}