Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow
> all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free
> organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without
> restrictions ?
I am very sorry, but I do not understand the question. I support that
people should be able to freely use our data, but as per specific
questions, I don't quite get what you are asking.
--Jimbo
Hoi,
I may get us the cooperation with the NTG the Dutch TeX usergroup. They
have a resource of 222.872 correctly spelled Dutch words. This data is
nominally licensed under the LGPL, just to ensure that it stays Free.
They are not particular about the license; anyone is free to use it. We
can host these words in the Ultimate Wiktionary. This means however that
the information has to stay FREE as in everyone is to be able to use the
data. It would serve us well in many ways; it would be not only an
important addition to the UW it would also enlarge the UW community in
an important way.
Currently their data is used by the Open Office organisation among many.
many others. The hosting of this type of content is one important way of
making the UW relevant. It is completely in line with the objectives of
the Wikimedia Foundation.
I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow
all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free
organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without
restrictions ?
Thanks,
GerardM
Hi,
in response to my appointment as Chief Research Officer of the Wikimedia
Foundation, I have put together a page describing this role, as well as
a potential larger Wikimedia Research Team that I want to form. Please see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Team
for details. To the Board: The proposal is largely unchanged from the
version I sent you, but it includes a note about what I call
"semi-official titles". I suggest therein that members of the Team can,
internally, use certain titles like "WRT Survey Coordinator." Please -
and that goes for non-Board members as well ;-) - let me know how you
feel about this idea, I think it could help reduce the impression that
the "Chief Research Officer" holds special authority over the other
members, and generally motivate people to join and work in certain roles.
The page includes a list of individuals I'd like to invite to join the
team; if you feel that anyone is missing from that list, please add
them. I will extend personal invitations soon, but if you see your name
on the list right now, please do indicate if you're interested (just
strike through or remove your name if you're not). Of course, if you
yourself are interested and not listed there, feel free to add yourself
to the list of members right away. There's no application procedure --
we can always deal with problems as a team if there are any.
I'm copying this to wikitech-l, as I want to encourage the developers to
take a look at the above page. I want to ensure you that at no point
will anyone try to tell volunteers what to do, or what code to accept,
and any assignment to developers paid by Wikimedia will have to be made
by the Board: the Team only gives recommendations. I also absolutely
want to encourage any interested developers to join; if there are any
conflict of interest issues, we can deal with them as they arise. I have
mainly not listed developers in my list of proposed members because my
intuition is that most of them are too busy to get involved, but I'd be
happy to be proven wrong on that count.
I'm sure that some of you will be skeptical about the usefulness of a
systematic research effort: In the open source world, code is everything
and words are often considered meaningless. However, I believe strongly
that analysis should precede implementation, and that volunteer
development can be combined in useful ways with targeted, task-oriented
coding. The Research Team also has other roles, but see the page on Meta
for details.
All best,
Erik
Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
been formed on Friday 17th 2005 in [[w:it:Canino|Canino]] by 18
wikimedians (some photos are avalaible on
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Costituzione_dell%27Associazione_Wikimedi…>).
The day after we had our first assembly, which confirmed our first board:
* [[w:it:Frieda|Frieda]], president
* [[w:it:Snowdog|Snowdog]], vicepresident
* [[w:it:Gac|Gac]], councilor
* [[w:it:M7|M/]], councilor
* [[w:it:Sbisolo|Sbisolo]], councilor
In this moment we already have 35 members!
Frieda
The notes from the second Research Network meeting on Saturday are at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-06-…
The meeting lasted almost 3 hours, simultaneously in two separate
channels (technical and social), with lots of good ideas and
commitments. One key focus for the Research Network in the coming weeks
will be to assist Brion in the migration of Wikimedia to a single login
system, by providing GUI mock-ups and process specifications. We
discussed many details of that.
I will of course also repeat my constant call for more members:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network
We are already more than 30 and still scaling well. We are really trying
to get things done, and we can use anyone with a brain and the
willingness to do work :-). Take a look at the notes and logs and you
will see that you don't have to be a developer in order to be able to
make a difference. Assistance in inviting users and researchers to join
the WRN is of course also welcome. Spread the word. :-)
Best,
Erik
Forwarded email that was originally sent to the board:
> I was reading more about the wikifoundations projects
> and wanted to pass along a tip concerning the project
> Wikisource. A dutch initiative of the University
> Leiden, the Digitale Bibliotheek Nedelandse
> Letterkunde (Digital Library of Dutch Litarary Arts)
> at www.dbnl.org has been digitising primary sources
> over the past 3 years.
>
> Perhaps this information will be of interest to wiki
> foundation.
In a message dated 6/18/2005 9:38:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik_moeller(a)gmx.de writes:
Hello Danny,
earmarking is something I generally support, with some caveats. My main
concern is that not everything we *should* do will necessarily be
directly funded by the community. This is especially true for
bootstrapping investments that benefit projects that currently don't
have a large supporting community yet. So I suggest that beyond overhead
costs, a substantial amount of money of every donation is also allocated
to a general bootstrapping fund to be used at the Foundation's discretion.
Hi Erik
I dont think we really disagree, except in terms of allotment. As I
mentioned in my previous email, there will certainly be a general fund to cover
operational costs. In fact, we should encourage people to donate to that, in
addition to the ten percent from other projects that I propose. Furthermore, this
is talking about smaller donations, whereas larger donations will be the
subject of a second email in a day or two.
As for the ten percent number, admittedly that was random, but it is based
on some realities. In general, Overhead costs range from 8-15 % in grants,
though i have seen as low as 0 % and as high as 20 %. I am proposing a
compromise for small donors, so that they feel that their money is going where they
want. For instance, if I want to give 25 euros to Guako, I want to know that at
least _most_ of that money reaches him. 50 % would cause me some concern.
Nevertheless, I do feel that the 10% I suggested is negotiable. I would like to
hear what other people say as well.
It could be split into different (broad) areas, e.g.:
Bootstrap - Documentation: $5K
Bootstrap - Development: $5K
I think that operational costs should take top priority. There's not
much point in asking people to fund development if we can't afford to
keep the servers running. So during a fundraising drive, only after our
goal is met, the "slots" for targeted donations should be opened. This
might also add some excitement to the drive.
I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I think this
will encourage more people to give to something. As Wikipedia continues to
grow, actual running costs will be much higher than small donations can hope
to cover.
My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this, we need
to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with that,
though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some
time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of
its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source
development and free content. But that's very long term thinking (years).
Before we hit long term, I'd like to concentrate on immediate implications.
Personally, I think that if we start soon, we may even be able to cover some
funding for Wikimania.
Danny
Best,
Erik
In a message dated 6/18/2005 9:30:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
beesley(a)gmail.com writes:
On 19/06/05, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
> I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility of earmarking their
> donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they
want
> their money to go. In that case, one donor may give specifically for
servers,
> while another donor may give specifically to promote a language, print a
> particular wikibook, or whatever.
Isn't there a danger of this leading to huge resources for the English
Wikipedia and not enough for the rest of the projects and languages
simply because more people visit that and therefore decide to put all
their donations towards that project rather than the Foundation's
wider goals?
Actually, this will help smaller projects. By projects, I do not mean a
specific wikilanguage. Rather, I mean projects like "Buying new servers,"
"Developing Wiktionary," "Helping Ossetian," the "Africa Project", etc. It does not
mean earmarking money for a specific Wiki. In fact, this will help people
keep abreast of new charitable projects as they emerge. This has nothing to do
with English or any other language
It might make more sense to say we will spend grant money on certain
projects, but I'm not yet convinced it makes sense for all donations
to have to go towards specific tasks in this way.
No, not all donations. But this allows people to have some say in how they
want the money they donate spent. There will certainly be an option to give to
the general running of Wikimedia, and all smaller grants will donate 10
percent to that cause as well.
Larger grants, in general, will require us to report on how we are spending
their money. I am suggesting that this serve as an outline for that. For
instance, we received a grant to push ahead with Wikijunior. We then have to
report to the donors how taht money was used to further that specific end.
Finally, of course the Board will have final say in which projects are
legitimate and which are not.
> 3. People involved in specific projects will naturally assume the
> responsibility of "Project Heads" and naturally grow to fill leadership
positions
I'm not sure how the topic of donations is related to this, nor
whether having "Project Heads" is needed.
It is already occurring. The address for Ultimate Wiktionary is Gerard. The
address for Ossetian is Amikeco. I think that this is a good thing, because it
helps build grassroots leadership.
On 19/06/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> This proposal helps the board to take decisions according to the
> community wishes and at the same time, it allows editors to support
> certain projects rather than others.
Would community wishes be reflected by this though? Many donors are
not members of the community, or not the editing community anyway, and
vice versa. What if a large donor puts all their money towards a
project that is not supported by the community? How could that be
dealt with?
Sure, and we want donors to have options about where to donate. From
non-Wiki experience, I can tell you that donors do not like the idea of just giving,
without knowing where their money is going. They want to get the best bang
for their buck, if you will pardon the Americanism. At the same time, they
also want to find a project that best suits their personal interests and
objectives. We are offering them a pallette from which they can choose.
I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community does" (if anything).
Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100% right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't thought enough about the distinction beforehand.
Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning. The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily* imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well, and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally honor the implication by making it explicit policy.
Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude is exactly what I am suggesting be changed.
I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against* those who want to express their views but cannot do so.
That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia stands for.
Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit!
I suggest the following:
Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project."
In the future it might not just be China. There are many other contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right direction for the future as well.
Dovi
foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Erik Moeller)
2. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Tim Starling)
3. Re: wikiholidays (Cormac Lawler)
4. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Andre Engels)
5. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Marco Krohn)
6. Chinese wikinews and fundamentals (Anthere)
7. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi)
8. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi)
9. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (David Gerard)
10. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Robin Shannon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 09:39:15 +0200
From: Erik Moeller
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <4275D923.2080609(a)gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Anthere:
> This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy
> and the fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation
> should NOT be taken into account... or we decide it is important, but
> require clearer community support. Not so easy to all agree on what
> should be done :-)
Dovi makes an important point which I also made in my "State of the
Wiki" summary, which is that there are millions of Chinese speakers who
would not be affected by censorship in mainland China. So, effectively,
there are two communities: one that would feel the censorship, and one
that wouldn't. The question is, should lack of support in one of them be
sufficient to deny the project to the other?
Regards,
Erik
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 17:43:41 +1000
From: Tim Starling
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese
> Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was
> reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free
> projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and
> "free speech"?
I think you're getting actual free speech confused with the paradoxical
terminology used by Richard Stallman to describe software with
restricted rights of use and distribution. Wikimedia supports the latter
but has never supported the former. Rightly or wrongly, Wikimedia
projects have been complicit in censorship of various kinds. I don't
think the discussion of censorship is aided by conflating these two
concepts.
-- Tim Starling
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:55:33 +0100
From: Cormac Lawler
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikiholidays
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/2/05, Anthere wrote:
> Hello
>
> I will be away (with no phone, no computer, no internet and likely no
> watch since I do not wear any) from next wenesday till tuesday the 10th.
> I will be in Agadir (Marocco) and surroundings.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anthere
A *real* holiday! Bon voyage..
Cormac
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:01:51 +0200
From: Andre Engels
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <6faf39c9050502020111bb4769(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/2/05, Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I
MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free
software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free
software? In that case I agree with not including it. Or is it used,
but do we say that's illegal? In that case I still think we should
shut up and just allow it. The issue should be availability, not
politics. Especially not politics that noone else seems to care about.
Andre Engels
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:02:43 +0200
From: Marco Krohn
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <200505021202.43502.marco.krohn(a)web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Monday 02 May 2005 11:01, Andre Engels wrote:
> Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I
> MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free
> software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free
> software?
FWIW: SuSE as well as RedHat removed the mp3 codecs from their recent
distributions.
best regards,
Marco
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 04:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthere
Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews and fundamentals
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <20050502115509.58720.qmail(a)web41804.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>However, you also argue that till now, many chinese have asked for the wikinews and that we
>>are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user >>request...""This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the >>fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into >>account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy >>to all agree on what should be done :-)"
>Thanks for your reply, Anthere! (That was fast, I was just about to go offline.)
Hello ;-)
>As far as I understand, normally when there is enough interest in a language version of >Wikinews, the language is launched.
>That is normal policy, so I have not fallen back on "community" in my argument.
It is "normal" policy only as far as "normal" indicates a "habit" and that this habit is supported. Note that the fact something is usually done does not mean it will be done forever.
Example : if you noticed, the "freedom" to open new wikipedia languages is actually more restricted today than it was in the past. Typically, we try not to be hasty in decisions regarding sublanguages versions, or artificial languages. It is very likely a language such as Klington could not be launched today. Why so ? Because what was once a "habit" (a sort of policy then) has changed.
Why did it changed ?
Mostly because many users expressed their disapproval with regards to some languages or sub languages. And felt it impacted the perception our audience could have of our work.
>Rather, the point is that *not* to act on normal policy here conflicts with a fundamental policy >of freedom.
>What you hint at is a slightly different issue, one which makes the *discussion* a bit more >"tricky" as you say, but not the gut issue.
>Namely: What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be a way not just >to express interest in building one, but also to vote against one? Intuitively, the answer is >"no", because anyone who doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply >doesn't have to!
>I understand that this latter question caused problems for the French Wikinews, though I >don't know the details.
>However, whatever happened with French Wikinews is connected only to the secondary >policy question, namely, should the policy for creating new languages, when the languages >are legitimate Wikimedia languages, also allow for opposition? Though I think in normal >circumstances probably not, this is completely unconnected to Chinese Wikinews!
>My point is to completely disengage the two issues: Whether or not "opposition" should be >allowed to creating a new language in a project is one question, and it is a completely >legitimate question (though I personally think the answer should be "no" in normal >circumstances).
You make a very good point here.
I would like to make a precision which might have escaped you. In your previous mail, you seem to consider the Foundation as being in sole responsability of the project not being started.
It is not really fair to say the project does not currently exist JUST because the Foundation opposed it. At some point, the chinese decided to express their desire that the project exist and voted. Whether people should be allowed to oppose or only to express support is a different issue; but generally, on wikipedia, people are allowed to oppose things. I think freedom of speech is a bit impaired if people are only allowed to support or to abstain. But well... anyway, the result of the chinese vote is .... unconclusive if one counts both support and opposition.
Since it was unconclusive, the board was asked to take the decision for the chinese community. This step in itself is interesting. Should we necessarily have the role of taking a decision when others can not find a consensus themselves ? Should it be our responsability ?
In any cases, we were requested to decide for others :-)
And just as others have been inconclusive, we have not been able to reach an agreement either :-) You say we oppose it... while amongst ourselves,
* one did not answer
* one opposed
* one thought the decision should be global community one
* one thought the decision should be local community one
* one supported
However, if the chinese community had globally supported it, there is no doubt in my mind that the above opinions voiced would not have mattered.
>But when such "opposition" is based on the threat or fear of censorship - there cannot even >be a question at all. Censorship is not a valid reason to oppose a Wikimedia project, if the >project stands
As explained above, our position is not opposition.
Which leaves the question : should it be a fundamental rule ? And should we enforce it ?
Ant
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:18:28 +0100
From: Timwi
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi.
I haven't seen the original discussion about a Chinese Wikinews, so this
is the first time I hear why it was disallowed.
If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you
are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by
censoring it yourself?...
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:21:16 +0100
From: Timwi
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dovi Jacobs wrote:
>
> What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be
> a way not just to express interest in building one, but also to vote
> against one? Intuitively, the answer is "no", because anyone who
> doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply doesn't
> have to!
Taking as an example the infamous Klingon Wikipedia, it was pretty clear
that a majority of people felt they were entitled to "vote against" it,
even though the argument you mentioned had already been brought up at
the time.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 00:12:13 +1000
From: David Gerard
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <20050502141213.GQ10417(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Timwi (timwi(a)gmx.net) [050502 23:19]:
> If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you
> are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by
> censoring it yourself?...
And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the
world ...
Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the
US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language
projects? Of course it wouldn't.
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 02:28:08 +1000
From: Robin Shannon
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Message-ID: <623d733805050209281a7185ab(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/3/05, David Gerard wrote:
>
> And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the
> world ...
>
> Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the
> US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language
> projects? Of course it wouldn't.
>
>
> - d.
This isnt quite a fair comparision. It ignores the massive difference
in population. Britain is about 50 million people out of over a
billion english speakers. Mainland China is over a billion chinese
speakers out of a populaiton of one point something billion speakers.
paz y amor,
[[wikinews:User:The bellman]]
--
hit me:
jab me:
This work is released into the public domain.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
*******************************************
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
The Wikimedia Research Network is a voluntary association of individuals
interested in studying the content, communities and technology of the
Wikimedia projects. It is free for anyone to join:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network
Today, 20:00 UTC, the WRN will convene on IRC, on the channel
#wikimedia-research
on
irc.freenode.net
Unlike the first meeting, this one will focus on very specific issues. I
intend to split the channel very quickly into two main topic areas:
* MediaWiki (software) related research
* study of the Wikimedia content and the project communities.
If you've never used IRC before, see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_instructions
for instructions. To convert UTC to your local timezone, go to:
http://worldtimeserver.com/current_time_in_UTC.aspx
== Agenda ==
For the technical side (this may depend on certain individuals being
present):
* Single login: helping Brion with the implementation by providing GUI
mock-ups and workflows
* Standardized wiki syntax: Lee's proposal
( http://piclab.com/lee/index.php/Wiki_syntax_proposal )
* Wikiversity/Wikisophia: defining the project's technical requirements
* If there is interest:
** Wikinews, Wikicommons enhancements
** next generation discussion system
* Planning the first community meeting: Wikibooks
* anything on your mind
Ideas for the content/community side:
* organizing a community-wide survey
* evaluating the state of the article validation system (possible
feedback to tech team)
* increasing collaboration across projects (Wikimedia COTW and similar)
* sharing study results and pooling data
* anything on your mind
== Research tasks and topics ==
As discussed in the last meeting, we have updated the following pages:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Interests
(Members of the WRN by topical interest)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research
(Research ideas and list of individuals doing research)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Development_tasks
(MediaWiki development tasks and specifications)
The latter two pages should become a major focus of attention for the
WRN over the coming months. They are the starting point to further,
project-specific pages. Please take a look and edit these pages as you
see fit. I would especially appreciate help with moving development
tasks from the "To do" section into the table (this requires classifying
and describing them, so only do that if you know what I mean with a
particular item ;-).
== Research mailing list ==
Specifically for the topic of *content* and *community* related
research, a new mailing list has been created:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Technical discussions should continue to take place on:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
There is not yet an organizational mailing list for the WRN itself; I
have requested permission to set this up.
All best,
Erik