Jump to content

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeronim (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 29 October 2005 (==Wikimedia as parent of Nupedia==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ah great, a foundation dedicated to creating an enyclopedia - how many years to go until Wikipedians dominate the galaxy? ;) 145.254.36.235

Removed:

The pror means of Wikipedia Governance, which had revolved around the Wikipedia mailing list and Wales' own decisions, are to be replaced by a new method negotiated probably among more frequent contributors.
"Are to be replaced"? I must have missed something here while reading the mailing list posts. This topic has not been raised yet there (which, now at least, is the only place any policy is decided). --mav
You didn't miss anything. Re-reading the announcement, the only commitment is to a board. That does imply however some shift to governance, that should start to be discussed. Mention of board and board procedures is enough, as those make mention of many governance concerns, for those interested. However, it may be valuable to elaborate on the history of m:Wikipedia Governance and the disputes thereon, since, this is what the new Wikimedia now takes over.
Also, this is not an issue, but, given that the fact removed happened to be about yourself, don't you think someone else, not yourself, should be the one to decide if it matters to every reader? We are all prone to a lack of objectivity regarding the importance of facts about ourselves, and certainly, you have removed facts or quotes you considered irrelevant, and would like that judgement to not be challenged by those quoted, creating endless edit war. I leave that to your judgement.
Imply yes, but nothing has been decided yet. And if I hadn't reserved the domain name then a squatter would have taken it (I didn't reserve the .com counterpart and that domain name was taken by a squatter). That alone would have rendered any choice in the name "wikimedia" to have much less value (and may have resulted in us dropping the idea of naming the Foundation "Wikimedia"). So the name was Seldon's idea but I followed through to make sure his name choice was possible (any foundation would need a web presence). All that is relevant to any discussion about the name. --mav

Yes, this sounds like advocacy, but I wonder if Wikimedia has a position on the [Public Domain Enhancement Act] of 2003. The act would require copyright holders of works over 50 years old to register their interest in a work with a $1 payment to the PTO every 10 years. Works for which the copyright holder doesn't register interest would fall into the public domain.


Is it/are we supporting the act? Would a position on the act be appropriate for the front page? -- ESP 14:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I support it and I'm sure many other Wikipedians would too if they knew about it but the Wikimedia Foundation only really exists in name and on paper right now so it cannot really have such a postion. But in the future I do foresee Wikimedia becoming a very important leader in the free/open content cause (similar to role that the Free Software Foundation plays for free/open source software). Baby steps until then, though. --mav
Hmm. I wonder if it would help or hurt to write up a draft of Wikipedia:Public Domain Enhancement Act (as opposed to Public Domain Enhancement Act) talking about what the effects of the act would be on Wikipedia. I realize that this is a politically charged issue, but if it seems like the free use of public domain sources (up to 1942! WOOHOO!) would be really helpful for the project. -- ESP 17:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Seems premature to create an article about an Act that is only proposed. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the Wikipedia namespace proposal since we try to steer clear of political issues (esp. in the encyclopedias). But discussing this on meta seems to be a good idea. --mav
Also, if Wikimedia wants 501(c)(3) tax exempt status there are limitations on lobbying activities, though just supporting proposed legislation is not usually considered lobbying. Alex756 20:36, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As I have visited various wiki's, including the Wikimedia peices, it occured to me that all the WikiMedia foundation wiki's need to have the WikiMedia logo as part of the page layout. This is expecially important when other Wiki's are using the WikiMedia Wiki software. I have visited a few wiki's that use WikiMedia software, but that are not associated with WikiMedia. I can recognize the WikiMedia software, so the assumption is that it is associated. --Jim 22:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See the new skin at http://test.wikipedia.org/ . Perhaps the Wikimedia logo could be the background image. The phrase "A Wikimedia project." can and, IMO, should also be right under the logo of each Wikimedia project's logo in their sidebars. --mav 03:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I propose to remove the donation information (i.e. accepting paypal, etc.) from the article, because that looks not much relevant for this encyclopedia entry. It smacks of self-promotion, too. Any objection? Tomos 19:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree it looked a bit too promotional having a whole section on donations. I've removed that and added the donation link to the paragraph about funding, which hopefully doesn't look as bad. Angela. 00:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why can we edit them?

why the heck do you make it so people can just edit somthing. i mean they could delete stuff, say bad stuff and link to bad sites and stuff. why?

They do that. They're also responsible for the entire content of the encyclopedia. It's very easy to fix such actions - it's called reverting a page and it's done by using the page history. The point of a wiki is that although it can be vandalized, it can be fixed even easier, and thus vandalism doesn't stay long. On average, vandalism on wikipedia lasts only 5 minutes. Yelyos 02:03, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you allow discussion pages to be edited? What use is it to change what someone said bar Vandalism? Also, why can't you do a request for a word article on Wiktionary? -Occono

Mainly because there is no way in this technology to allow people to add new comments without also allowing them to alter existing text. A discussion page no one could write to wouldn't be worth much.
That said, there are some good reasons to allow editing even within existing portions of a discussion page:
  • Allows people to intersperse a remark to reply directly to a particular point.
  • Allows people to correct their own misspellings, add a citation near a particular comment etc.
  • Allows someone to use strikethrough to retract a remark.
  • Allows reorganization of material inserted in wrong places. (Newbies keep adding stuff at the top.)
  • Allows removal of copyvios.
  • Allows archiving or refactoring of old discussion.
  • Etc.

Imaginably, we might be better off with more of a bulletin board system for discussion rather than a wiki, but it would not blend so well into the rest of the site. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. But what about Word requests? -Occono

I know you can add words to the Wikisaurus (part of Wiktionary) but you can't do that from Wikipedia; you have to go over to Wiktionary to do it. Here are the instructions I found: Creating a Wikisaurus entry. Mamawrites 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying.--Occono 13:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikitravel

So wikitravel isn't part of Wikimedia then? It should be snapped up by Wikimedia because it has the potential to be really good. Someone should make a similar page to Wikitravel. Call it Wikitravller or Wikiwandering or Wikiplanet. Any better names? To be honest though, there could be so so many wiki projects. Wikispecies was a crap idea. I reckon Wikiwork, an online essay-editing club would be cool. Or Wikibot, where somehow users make a kinda robot. Or Wikicook, an online cookbook. Wikinews, where people tell us about random news that has happened near them. Wikijokes, so everyone can share dirty jokes. And Wikiwiki where people can post ideas about future Wiki services

The people at Wikitravel are well-aware of the fact that the people who run Wikimedia are big fans and would love to host them. So far the Wikitravelers are perfectly comfortable being on their own. Oh, and something like WikiJoke would never fly as a Wikimedia project due to a lack of educational merit. I do agree that Wikispecies was a stupid idea. I fought against it’s creation but obviously lost. Wikinews already exists and is doing very well though. --mav 17:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia owns Nupedia?

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is the parent organization of [...] Nupedia.

Can someone provide a cite for this? anthony (see warning) 14:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In Jimbo's announcement of the founding of Wikimedia, he transferred the domain names of Nupedia to the Foundation. Does that cover it? Angela. 06:23, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
I suppose so. anthony 警告 22:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia as a Blog engine

I see wikimedia have the potential to be used as a Blog engine. I've tried it myself in my computer and connect as localhost. I think it's better than any other blog in existence. Is there any group who would make such an idea a reality? Roscoe x 14:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of MediaWiki, the software, not Wikimedia, the organisation. And the best place to discuss this would probably be the mediawiki-l or wikitech-l mailing lists. - IMSoP 17:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the name of the Project

Why have the projects a so strange name, like Wikisomething?

Most of us rather like strange names. See Wiki for the explanation of this one. JamesMLane 06:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Foundation operated for some time with no paid staff, but that now a few people are paid to tend to the servers and/or do development work. Whatever the facts are, could someone who knows them add them (date first employee hired, size and duties of paid staff as of July 2005)? In Jimbo's talk at Harvard on April 25, he mentioned the small size of the paid staff compared with 180 employees at USAToday.com, which gets fewer pageviews than we do. I think that point would be of interest to many readers. (Well, without the snarky comparison, of course.) JamesMLane 06:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't have any employees. Just two people on contract. Brion Vibber helps keep the servers humming from a software management standpoint (he lives in California) and Chad Perrin helps Jimmy Wales set the physical servers up in Tampa. Both started paid work in February 2005. --mav 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mailboxes Etc.

The links to google maps for an overhead view of the foundation were actually to a Mailboxes Etc. (presumably where the foundation has an account). See http://www.thecityoftampa.com/mailbox/

Criticism

Please add this in the article: Wikimedia has been criticised by some Wikipedia users: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." - User:Tim Starling (MediaWiki developer). I now nominated this article for POV-check because it needs more balance, and a Criticism section. My edit which added Tim Starling's criticism was removed. Wikinerd 03:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll and survey

I believe Wikimedia needs attention in order to bring more balance in it, and especially a Criticism section which in my opinion should contain comments made by MediaWiki developer user:Tim Starling: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." - Please note that user:UninvitedCompany used his sysop revert power to remove my edit. Please vote below. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is the Wikimedia article currently biased, written from an insider's point of view, delibarately not mentioning negative opinions and facts?

2. Does the Wikimedia article need a Criticism section?

  • Yes, because readers will assume that the article isn't NPOV because it was written by wikipedia users. Adding a Criticism section would prove that Wikipedia is truly NPOV. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argumentation is wrong. Adding a criticism section doesn't prove anything, and from where do you infer that readers will assume the article is POV? Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but the one you provided was mere sour grapes and unhelpful in achieving NPOV. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
  • I generally dislike the practice of segregating criticisms in their own ghetto-section, rather than weaving them appropriately into the overall fabric of the article. And again, the question doesn't resolve the issue of whether this specific attempt has any value. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there shouldn't be such a section in any article. I agree with Michael. A criticisms section is more appropriate for a term paper than an encyclopedia article. If there was significant news coverage about criticisms maybe this would be an exception, but even then it'd be better to separate sections by topics other than Pro/Con. anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

3. Should MediaWiki developer user:Tim Starling comments be included in the Criticism section or elsewhere in the Wikimedia article?

  • Yes, it's criticism made by a prominent MediaWiki developer and published on his user page. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because he prefers not to, see below. Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because it is based upon the the fact between Tim's original goals in contributing to Wikipedia are not furthered by Wikimedia. The fact that Wikimedia does not meet Tim's goals or vision does little to provide balance to the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
  • No. Tim's statement makes sense primarily as an internal comment, intended for an internal audience that will recognize the issues he is talking about, whether or not it agrees with his views. In an encyclopedia article with general readership, the intended significance is barely comprehensible when wrenched from its original context. This may be why Tim himself objects to including it. Any criticisms to be included in this article would preferably have been published externally (like Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia), but the Wikimedia Foundation's profile isn't high enough to have generated much in the way of public critique yet. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have a strong and reasonable argument about the internal audience. Since Tim Starling doesn't like his criticism in the article, I agree not to put it there again, but since his userpage is GFDL nothing would stop me or anyone else to quote Tim Starling on sites not hosted by Wikimedia, if I/they really wanted to do that, right? Wikinerd 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole quote is a bit much for such a short article, and borders on Wikipedia:Original research. Put it in Wikiquote, which is or should be linked from this article. anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

4. Was User:UninvitedCompany right to revert my edit using his sysop powers? (Please note that in the past I filled a RFC on him, and another sysop has also filled an RFC on me which involved alleged personal attacks against UninvitedCompany, this is not a personal attack and I don't accuse him of anything, but you need to know that this sysop seems to delibarately watch my edits).

  • No because my edit was encyclopedic, in my opinion. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, UC is well within his rights here, and the way you're raising this issue is entirely inappropriate. Additionally, contribution logs are public record, so you cannot blame him for reading yours. Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Since your edits are frequently questionable I do watch them closely and revert those that do not further the goals of the project. Wikipedia has a wide range of discussion venues for those dissatisfied with the operation of the site. Wikimedia is not one of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
  • Yes on the revert, and I agree that the questionability of Wikinerd's edits warrants continuing scrutiny. If the use of rollback on this particular edit is subject to challenge, I think it may be excused given the need to monitor and expeditiously remove dubious contributions. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares? anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Puerile trolling. You can put it in the article over my dead body. -- Tim Starling 04:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

who's trolling? I'm not a troll. If you don't agree with your own criticism then why you have it on your own user page? Wikinerd 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, you do not have to be a sysop in order to revert an article. While admins have the rollback feature to make reverting easier, anyone can revert an article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. I think in this ocassion UninvitedCompany used the quick revert feature, however. Wikinerd 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback is the quick revert feature, but I know of some non-admins who type the same thing when they revert (reverted edits by Foo to the last version by Bar). Also, I thank you for switching to the user name you are using now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used the rollback feature as I often do when reverting the work of a contributor whose edits have proven troublesome in the past. I have never believed the argument that rollback is appropriate only for "pure vandalism," something that is widely heard but is not, in actual fact, policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Yahoo?

Why no reference to when Yahoo helped pay for the Wikimedia servers or something similar? Please, could someone add this? --Gary King 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation building

Can you include a picture of the Wikimedia Foundation building ?

Small HQ

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against economising where possible, but how do all the servers fit in the trunk of a car? See this Google Maps map  ;-) -- user:zanimum (where is the actual HQ on the map, BTW?)

wikimedia foundation = wikimedia board? section needed in article

i tend to get confused when there are statements about an action or decision of Wikimedia Foundation, e.g. on Wikipedia:Tools/1-Click_Answers or when people say something like the Wikimedia Foundation's policy is....

Is the Wikimedia Foundation:

  1. Jimbo? or
  2. the Board? or
  3. the members (e.g. people with a minimum number of edits etc, eligible to vote for board members)?

If the board makes a decision, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation makes the decision?

Or if His Majesty Jimbo Wales makes a decision, does that make it a decision of the Wikimedia Foundation? - e.g. 4. Final policy decisions are up to me, as always.

Or does the Wikimedia Foundation constitute all of its members, i.e. people who have made a minimum threshold number of edits, i.e. were authorised to vote for board members?

If all people who were eligible to vote for the board (or would be eligible now) constitute part of the Wikimedia Foundation, then shouldn't controversial proposals like this one be rather more widely announced (like the board election itself - with a small warning at the top of each wikipedia page)? If wide community participation in a proposal is not invited, and if afterwards a statement is made that Wikimedia Foundation decided this or that, then it seems to me inconsistent to claim that the Wikimedia Foundation includes all of its members.

In any case, IMHO there should be some clear statement of this on the article page here. Boud 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia as parent of Nupedia

Nupedia ceased to exist long before Wikimedia existed, but Wikimedia was listed as its parent organization. This seems perfectly ridiculous to me, so I've changed the article. -- Jeronim 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation&oldid=26803446"