Foundation wiki feedback/Archive/2009

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Donors Comment Page

we are waiting for the indian currency to be functional in order to donate whole heartedly,, The facility for small donors to leave a comment and have it posted on your web site is a great idea and very motivating for donors, like me. What would be even nicer if the page could be searchable so I could find my donation and my comment. This is a possible use of some of the site development money you are raising.

A further fund raising option would be a facility to enable the donor to email the record of his donation with his comment to selected friends with a request that they too donate. This further facility would I believe, (as a professional fund raiser) really increase you income.

Roland.Hodson@gmail.com

I can speak from experience that if you allow public posting of comments, even from the smallest of donations, there will be a flood of one-yen donations with comment of, "So, Jimbo, how was Rachel in front of the mirror?" We probably don't want that. -- Thekohser 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Information

The site is helpful but they dont give the publisher or the author of the article.

Generally, the Wikimedia Foundation is the publisher (even though they are protected by Section 230 from the covenants that publishers are otherwise held to), and the author (or community of authors) of the various articles can be found on the article "history" tab at the top of the page window. -- Thekohser 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally it is authors. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 15:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Currency option

why dont i see the rupee as a currency to donate ,very dissapointing :(

This is definitely a goal, it's just not easy to implement at the moment. Cbrown1023 talk 15:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surplus?

I just saw your presentation for FY 08-09. As far as I could
see you reported $1.7m surplus from FY 07-08. Now, you are
predicting another surplus of $1.3m. Does it mean that at the
end of the FY 08-09 you will have total surplus of $3m?

What is the rationale for that? Why do you need so huge surplus
(compared to total revenues)?

I'm very sorry if I misunderstood your presented data. I just
asking for explanation.

Thank you in advance,
Uros Nedic, Serbia
urosn (at) beotel (dot) rs

Thank you for your question. Yes, you are reading that we show an under-spending in 07-08 of $1.7MM and and 08-09, intend to spend $1.3MM less than revenue.
There are several reasons that we would like to have surplus funds available such as:
  1. Current economic climate: Given the current economic climate, there is a lot of uncertainty. Naturally, many people (including past donors and would-be donors) are cutting back on expenses. While we were pleasantly surprised by the response to our online fundraising campaign, we don't know how the next campaign will fare. We always want to be conservative when depending on the generosity of others. If we have a shortfall in the future, we will be able to utilize these funds rather than cutting basic operating expenses which in turn could affect the site.
  2. Desire to expand and improve beyond basic operations: There are many areas where we wish to expand, improve etc. such as expanding reach and participation and improving accuracy and perceptions of accuracy. Right now, much of our expense budget is for basic operations. We want to take on more, but to do so, creates more expenses for us. We don't want to spend what we don't have.
  3. Development of an Endowment, etc.: Ultimately, we'd like to develop an Endowment or other investment vehicle from which we could fund part of our Operations annually. If we don't have to use this money for contingencies, we can think about using it for something like an Endowment.
  4. Maintaining site and operation despite unexpected expenses: Sometimes unexpected expenses arise. Having extra funds available ensures smooth and continuous operations.
VeroniqueKessler 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright template for PDF files.

The template at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_2007_Form_990.pdf is for foundation logos. When used with PDFs it implies that the Adobe icon is a foundation logo, instead of saying that the document that icon links to is an all rights reserved copyrighted document. Please fix. -- Jeandre, 2009-01-07t06:17z

I've removed the tag, it didn't really make sense in the situation. Cbrown1023 talk 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong date on German "Lokale Sektionen"-page"

The date of registration for the Polish chapter on the German language page Lokale Sektionen is wrong. Instead of "18. November 2008" there has to be "15. November 2005" (see [1] resp. [2]). --92.72.141.29 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (Contact me in Wikipedia as User "Duschgeldrache2".)

We have "18 November 2005" on the English page, changed it to that. Thanks for the fix. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Foundation:Thank you to Foundation:Thank you!

Will somebody make a redirect from Foundation:Thank you to Foundation:Thank you! ? The unformatted url http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Thank_you! doesn't work currently because the '!' is dropped. External software to automatically make links can also drop '!'. PrimeHunter 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created the redirect. Thank you for leaving a note here. - Rjd0060 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! PrimeHunter 04:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please add a link to Local chapters

I had great difficulties to find info about the local organisations called Local chapters. In particular the one for Belgium. I would suggest to add a sentence on page [Local chapters] just after the text "If you have questions about local chapters or want to start one in your country, please don't hesitate to contact the Chapters committee" like "For more information about the Local Chapters see also [[3]].". This will make a crosslink between the category sequence in wikimediafoundation.org Cat:All -> cat:WM Organisation and the category sequence in meta.wikimedia.org "Categories" -> "WM Foundation" -> "WM management" -> "Local Chapters" Regards, Wouterhagens 14:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've linked it to the Wikimedia Chapters page, it should include all of the same information which is available in that category. diff --Az1568 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Wouterhagens 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sudden inclusion of 'Sponsored Links' results in lost user

For all its many merits, Wiki has lost this user by the sudden and forceful inclusion of a 'Sponsored Links' frame whenever accessing content. An unobtrusive placement (bottom of page, for example) would have been a far more acceptable choice for this user.

Um, there are no "sponsored links" on any Wikimedia Foundation page. Where are you looking, and what browser add-ons have you installed lately? - jredmond 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org

There is a typo on the opening page, where it list all of the language options, saying Free Encyclopedia in the various languages. The polish heading states "Wolna encyklopedia". The translation of wolna is free, but it is free in the sense of not being enslaved. The word you are looking for is "darmowa" which also translated to free, but in the sense of, it costs you nothing.

Regards,

Andrew Legg

poland755@hotmail.com

Wolna also means that everyonce can edit it and it's published under a free license. In Polish we have "wolne oprogramowanie" (open software), "wolna" can mean that people are free to edit it, so changing it to "darmowa" would change meaning to free as you don't need cash to edit it. "Wolna" can also mean "slow", but it's correct only when we have problems with servers ;) So it's correct and very good translation, cause one word mean few things and every meaning have something to do with Wikipedia. Herr Kriss 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Andrew, "wolna encyklopedia" is an official translation used everywhere on pl.wiki, even on the main page: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strona_g%C5%82%C3%B3wna It's in my opinion a proper meaning, cause it means "free content (wolna tresc)", and not "free of charge" which would mean "darmowa tresc". The core idea of Wikipedia content is that you are free to use it (which translates to "dowolnie"), but under some conditions. Also "darmowa" would not covey the meaning "free to edit" - in Polish "kazdemu wolno edytowac", though it's not the best style. Regards, Rdrozd 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While "darmowa encyklopedia" would certainly do justice the narrow meaning construed and foisted upon us by the plaintiff, as was already sanely observed by Herr Kriss and Rdrozd, changing to the proposed string would rob the <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">whole of its other, layered, equally important meanings, one which is the core truth: anyone can edit and anyone can edit it freely, without allegiance to any flag or ideology.
  • Nothing is broken here. "Darmozjadowa encyklopedia" or "Encyklepadlo dla wiecznie glosujach i zwasnionych darmozjadow" would also be apt and spot-on, constituting conceivable precise translations of what "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" either really means or signifies.
  • Polish readers might appreciate the subtleties of my proposed alternatives, which I leave in the original, so as not to despoil their charm. Alternatively, the wikipedistically adventrous, those who fancy themselves as adepts at milking the free cows of machine translation and dictionary lookup in the local ambient, hop to it. --Mareklug 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiHow model of fundraising via opt-out ads

I don't know where to post this. I see existing projects, and many proposed projects, that need money, servers, and staff. See: Category:Proposed projects, Proposals for new projects.

Wikihow, see wikipedia:WikiHow, uses an opt-out ad model, and pays for its operations with ad money. See: wikinews:Jack Herrick, WikiHow founder interviewed by Wikinews (Jan. 31, 2009 article). Non-registered readers normally see ads, but can opt out of ads. WikiHow says they "were the first high traffic website to offer a 'hide ads' button." Readers can block ads for 24 hours by clicking the button. Those who are registered and logged in do not see ads. See: wikiHow:Why Hide Ads - wikiHow. WikiHow has over 50,000 articles, and had 14.3 million unique readers in February 2009. [4].

They have raised enough money with this model to also donate $48,000 to the Wikimedia Foundation [5]. For more info: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Advertisements#Arguments for optional adverts. Please consider this idea. --Timeshifter 03:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

Apologies but I can't find a way to comment on the Wikipedia website so I'm placing my comment here. I have used your site for years but I just joined and donated. Why today? I needed to know if a grass, sedge, or rush could be considered a forb -- and found the answer with one click, in the first line.

I have two design comments.

1. The five tabs at the top of this page should contain a sixth. "Donate" Simplicity works. I had to look around to give my 30 dollars.

2. After donating the PayPal page should offer a re-direct back to Wikipedia (or whereever) visibly and directly. If it was there, I couldn't find it.

Thanks for everyone's good efforts. Best, markmac28

Maybe the "Donate" link in the sidebar can be moved to the navigation section of the sidebar. Maybe between "Main page" and "Goings-on".
Maybe this discussion can be copied to the talk page for MediaWiki:Sidebar. I don't currently have the energy or time though to follow up on this. --Timeshifter 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Orange partnership announcement and Q&A terms

On the new Orange partnership announcement and/or its Q&A page, would someone please explain the meaning of the terms "channels," "portals," and "widgets"? Thank you. 208.54.4.69 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Orange Wikimedia partnership . Maybe people can answer those questions there, too. --Timeshifter 00:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Village Pump discussion is continued here:
en:Wikipedia talk:Advertisements/Orange Wikimedia partnership --Timeshifter 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

portuguese page

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos

the wikibooks logo is too big

not all portuguese projects are in bold

there's no link to wikiquote in portuguese

cheers, =)

--Solstag 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You can edit it at: Translation requests/WMF/Our projects/pt. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the pointer! --Solstag 09:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
So, what else do I need to do to get it synched with the WMF website? --Solstag 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Usually you just change the status to "ready" (hit the +/- in the box at the right), but I've updated the page for you. Cbrown1023 talk 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

предложение идеи.

Добрый день я как человек заинтересованый в вашем сайте, хотел бы дать вам свои идеи.И предоставить вам содействие войдя в вашу организацию моя электроная почта- fras33@bk.ru спосибо

Здравствулте!. Это место для комментариев о wiki WMF, домашней странице для учредительства Wikimedia. Я не думаю вы пригонки запроса здесь. Вы. NonvocalScream 04:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Volunteering

The volunteering opportunities page doesn't ask for people to volunteer with much. Wouldn't it be better saying something more like "Want to help the Wikimedia Foundation? Edit Wikipedia, upload images to Commons, translate things, help out at your local chapter, offer your specific skill set to us, ... BTW, we need people specifically for this, this and this, urgently." ? Mike Peel 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's more Cary's area, this query might be better aimed directly at him. Cbrown1023 talk 23:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of Living People Resolution & Commons

The Wikimedia Foundation Resolution:Biographies of living people has generated some discussion on Wikimedia Commons. Is the neutrality intended to apply to all individual images on Commons? For example, are all non-neutral editorial cartoons or caricatures depicting living public figures prohibited by this resolution? (An example of an image deletion request where the BLP resolution has been invoked Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen -- note in this particular case this is only one of multiple issues under discussion regarding the image). Some claification of how this resolution applies to contents of the Commons would be helpful. -- Infrogmation 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Board was intentionally vague and nonspecific. They ask the community to determine the policy itself: Biographies of living people. Cbrown1023 talk 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment and link. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Indians cannot donate in INR

Wiki team, In case you are not aware, lots of Indians access,use,benefit,are aware of WIkipedia. Also there has been enough press about how you are a non-profit org. Many of my friends woul dbe interested in donation online. But there is no option to pay by the INR currency. Please consider adding that.

We are trying. We are working with various payment providers to give that exact option. At this time, we hope to have INR donation functionality in time for the 2009 Annual Fundraiser. Rand Montoya 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to everyone who contributes to info for Wikipedia. So glad you are in existence. Penny

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please allow me to extend a sincere thank you for taking time out of your day to write us. We appreciate your kind words and are thrilled that you enjoy Wikipedia. We hope to continue to live up to your expectations and that you continue to find the site a useful resource. If you are interested in becoming involved in the site yourself, please see our tutorial at Wikipedia:Tutorial which contains all the help you need to get started. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

foundation:隐私政策 needs updating

section 与第三方共享信息, GFDL to CC --Liangent 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

foundation:资助的免税政策 needs updating

information in more countries/territories is needed. especially Hong Kong (because this page is in Chinese). --Liangent 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Viquipèdia

There is a typo in foundation:Template:OurProjects-ca. Viquiepèdia should be fixed to Viquipèdia. Thanks in advance. --Vriullop 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Az1568 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ukrainian version of FAQ

Please add ukrainian version of FAQ from this page. --A1 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi A1, thanks for helping out with translations. Unfortunately, that request has been closed for a while now and as a result, the source text on meta is no longer current. So we really aren't able to publish that translation since it does not match the current text on the FAQ. Sorry. --Az1568 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

EN-WP-COUNT Template is working strangely

On page [6] you can see that the template EN-WP-COUNT is not pre-visualized correctly showing a link to a non-existing page. Thus if you follow to [7] where this source is finally published you'll notice that the template is working fine. Sol 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's intentional, they're on separate wikis. The page on Meta is just the translation workspace, not all templates will work properly. Cbrown1023 talk 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Benefactors

On the foundation website there is a benefactors page. That page lists recent predominantly financial donation sorted by dollar amount.

More and more institutions do contribute content on a massive scale to Wikipedia and other projects. Should there be recognition of these contributions as well? Examples includes

Dedalus 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with contributors being recognized for their work if that is what they want, but I don't think the appropriate place is the Benefactors page. The page is to give recognition to donors who otherwise would remain completely unknown except to the fundraising staff. It is also a fairly standard practice among fundraising institutions to have an area that gives a shout out to their funders. An opera, museum or symphony brochure, for example, will have several pages just devoted to their donors. At the same time, they also have several other pages devoted to the artists and the people that make their content happen. The two areas exist separately, most likely for easy reference.
Also, before recognition is given to institutions that do contributions on a massive scale to Wikipedia, other questions need to be answered. For one, how does one determine "massive scale"? Why do only institutions get recognition and not individual contributors? How would this work with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy?
Anya 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
@Anya. Thanks for your reply. I did *not* suggest to put such a list on the benefactors page. Individual contributors get recognized through history of articles. I single out institutions brave enough to unlock say hundreds of thousands of digitized material on files. Their contribution is hardly a secret, to the contrary. So why I would want this? To encourage other institutions to unlock their material. Dedalus 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
@Dedalus. I'm sorry for misunderstanding, thanks for following up. Here's my question: before publicly giving these institutions any special recognition, how possible is it to contact them and ask them if they want to be recognized? It's in the WMF donor privacy policy to not disclose names unless specifically told to do so. It's just something to consider. Anya 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I do understand 'privacy' concerns individual ('private') persons, not institutions. Nonetheless, those institutional donations are most times accompanied by press releases ... And, I didn't ask for a discussions, but for contributions to a list of known institutional donations. Dedalus 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
So it seems that everyone agrees wmf:Benefactors isn't the best place, but I definitely think a page like this would be cool (if only for us to remember all the places we've worked with ;-)). I'm going to poke Mathias and Jennifer to this page, they're probably the two best people to comment. Cbrown1023 talk 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am in favour of listing organisations and institutions that have done things we like. As a provisional title, I would go with Free Content Role Models or something like that. -- Mathias Schindler 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Logo reuse

Can I use Wikimedia Commons,Wikipedia,Wikisource Logo?--210.222.216.242 08:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you cannot because those logos are copyrighted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
...and/or trademarked. If you feel you should be able to use them, please contact Mike Godwin at mgodwinatwikimedia.org Cbrown1023 talk 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Translation of resolutions, our projects

It would be useful to have Resolutions and Policies translated into the core Wikimedia languages. Especially those that all projects are expected to know about and abide by. The partial translations linked from the top of the page are significantly out of date. Other basic information pages such as wikimedia:Our projects are regularly out of date in major languages; but don't have a notice at the top about this - which can give visitors a misleading impression. Should they also have a standard 'dated' template? Is there an automated mechanism for guessing when an original has been updated and flagging translations as stale?

Use of talk pages

Is there an existing thread about making talk pages [un]editable on the foundation wiki? It makes it difficult to carry on discussions about how a certain page should look or be used over time.

If all talk is meant to be on this one Meta page, should the historical discussions be moved there as well? Some wikimedia: pages have talk, and some do not. It would be clearer if all talk pages were opened up, or all redirected here. -- sj | translate | + 09:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Terms of Use" improvement

The Wikipedia "Terms of Use" are the shortest I have ever witnessed in my twenty years of Internet use. While this may be a good thing in that it does not scare off the "little people" who contribute, it does not level the playing field where larger constituencies have to deal with the reality of other large constituencies in the pursuit and expression of truth. It really would be helpful if a few caveats were listed in the extraordinarily short Wikipedia "Terms of Use". The most beneficial is if there was listed a notice that all users had to abide by the Wikipedia "policies and guidelines" and "dispute resolution" policy. It would also be helpful if many of the other "scary" possibilities dealing with Wikipedia were listed or noticed in the "Terms of Use" policy. Even with foreknowledge that there was a dispute resolution option available, it is difficult to find. It really needs to be listed or at least acknowledged in the "Terms of Use" (or other primary document).

Wikipedia, in its desire to make knowledge available to everyone, needs to be more concerned that it is manipulated every day by Established Entities seeking to preserve false pretenses that serve their purposes. By making dispute resolution a more prominent part of Wikipedia, the impartial aspect of Wikipedia's self described mandate would serve an important social purpose. Even if the dispute resolution required that both sides of an issue were required to be reported and left for the reader to decide, it would be better than leaving the reader with an impression that there was no controversy over the subject or what the controversy was about. Simply knowing that there is a controversy, inspires youth to resolve said controversies through research.

In summary, all this idealism is for naught if Wikipedia makes it hard to present controversial information in a neutral format. If others are able to edit controversial entries and there is no "readily available" means to counter such malicious edits, Wikipedia has failed in its self described mandate. Virtually every software program and every Internet web site offering a service has a terms of service agreement that deals with abuse. Yet, Wikipedia does not offer a dispute resolution clause or link much less one about its policies and guidelines in its terms of service. You say be bold, yet boldness gets slapped down. I have navigated enough of Wikipedia to figure out that there are solutions to my problems – you just make it so hard to find! Try being on the receiving end of Wikipedia sometime. Without the proper protection, it is indeed scary!

falsche Sprache !!

warum sucht die österreichische Wikipedia ( = Wikipedia.AT ) auf nach TSCHECHISCHEN Texten ????????

There is no Austrian Wikipedia, that's a portal page designed by Wikimedia Österreich (WMAT). From what I know, it showcases the other regional languages spoken in Austria in addition to the official language (German). According to w:Languages of Austria, that includes Czech. Cbrown1023 talk 13:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unorderly spelt words in TAMIL version of the site

happy to see your site in Tamil language. but the letters in tamil version of your site is not in right order. please take this in consideration. thanking you.

Good to hear that you like the Tamil sites. However, like all of our other projects, our sites in the Tamil language are set up so that you can edit the pages yourself; you don't need to come here to complain. - jredmond 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

wmf:资助 needs updating

  1. change (c)(4) to (c)(3), is this a typo?
    Fixed on wmfwiki and also Meta-Wiki
  2. some lines are in wrong place such as 看看捐助者和用户的即时留言 etc.
    I fixed that one, any others?

--Liangent 09:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 talk 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Donating

Hello,

I find your site to be very informative and thank you for keeping it up and running. I would like to know however, are you always asking for donations constantly? If so where can the page be found to make a donation? 75.71.124.249 00:58 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll find that page here. Regards, Wutsje 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

General disclaimer

wmf:General disclaimer is empty. General disclaimer here softly directs to en.wp. The last disclaimer is about the content of the main/article namespace on en.wp. Shouldn't there be a more specific disclaimer about what we're discussing here on meta? Shouldn't there be a disclaimer on the foundation site? Actually i got here after viewing the pages on strategyapps and strategy ... Dedalus 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

wmf:Wikimedia:General disclaimer. Cbrown1023 talk 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Link on wmf:Nous contacter (Contact us)

Could anybody change, on the page wmf:Nous contacter, the link Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia to Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia or better Commons:Commons:Réutilisation de contenu hors de Wikimedia (the translation seems to be up to date). The first link is a redirect which has been deleted. ~ Seb35 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated the link and undeleted the redirect. Merci for pointing it out! Cbrown1023 talk 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback/Archive/2009"