Foundation wiki feedback

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

Hello. I am a wikipedian from Spain since a few years ago and I have some requests for you:

First of all, I'll show you two facts:

# The Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia and all the sister projects throughout the world.

# The Wikimedia Foundation is financed by people from all over the world, who spend their money, and also put their effort and faith in what they think to be a cause without barriers.

If so, then, why is the Wikimedia Foundation website only available in English? Isn't it possible to hire a translator for just 5% of the money you spend on high executives and make the WMF available, at least, and for a start, in the main 5 languages in the world, for instance? It's a bit frustrating to see that you donate your money and they don't even have the deference to show where your money goes in your own language. Many people don't speak English, and the original Wikipedia is no longer Wikipedia and nothing else, but the English Wikipedia, and that means that there's also a French Wikipedia, a German Wikipedia, a Spanish Wikipedia, and so on. Sometimes I have the feeling that people who don't speak English are just ignored by the WMF (although their money is not ignored, but accepted). Isn't that inconsistent with your strategic plan?

One second thing I'd like to talk about is the kind of examples you use sometimes. For example, I couldn't believe Ms. Gardner's words when she said that one of the consequences of the gender gap is that Wikipedia (I suppose she's talking about the English Wikipedia) has less articles about knitting. What about articles about psychology, or nursing science, or embryology? I don't know if it's not the case in the US, but in Spain (among other countries) we are very sensitive to sexism in language, and I think that the knitting example wasn't a fortunate example for what it implies, and many people in the Spanish Wikipedia are annoyed about that.

The last thing (so far :-)) I'd like to point out is transparency. In Spain, for example, the salaries of our politicians are public. In your annual report, you showed several percentages of different areas where the money was spent, but:

# How much money did each person earn?

# What did each one of them exactly do during the past year?

As donators, and thus, legitimate benefactors, I think we should be informed about every single detail of the donating-and-spending process. When you donate money for an African village, for example, you even receive photographs of the children you are helping; a lot of effort is put into making you think that it's really worth the pain, that they really care, and that's the basic attitude for a charity-reliant organisation, I think. With $16M raised this year and more than $20M predicted for the next year, I'm sure you will find how to spend a bit of all that money to make us trust you -and I mean trusting you in our own language-, because trusting you means trusting in a better world.

Sincerely yours, Dalton2 00:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Note: this message is also available (in Spanish) to all the people with access to the Spanish Wikipedia, from the nearly 450 million people who speak (and in most cases, only speak) Spanish in the world.[reply]

On an off-topic but sightly related note, a suggestion was previously made to increase the number of non-Anglospheric articles submitted for publication on the English Wikipedia's 'Today's Featured Article' section. A copy of the discussion thread can be viewed here. Best: HarryZilber

OK, it's an interesting topic, but it has nothing to do with this one. I'm not talking about the articles in the English Wikipedia, but the Wikimedia Foundation itself, which receives all the donations, and thus has the responsibility of making people all over the world know why they should continue sending their money. In a nutshell: We want to know exactly what they are doing, and we want to understand what they're saying, and English is not our native language, so we can't. That's the least we would expect when we send a donation. I'm speaking in plural because I'm talking in the name of ~~the Spanish Wikipedia~~ a lot of users of the Spanish Wikipedia who think the same. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think it's better tell it like it is. Best regards. --Dalton2 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton, I gree with your request and I'm waiting an answer, but you can't talk in the name of a project, nobody can. As Dalton says, this message doesn't talk anout English Wikipedia, it talks about the Foundation, and how the other languagues different to English aren't at the same level in it, and of course about the money. --Millars 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Millars, it was my mistake. I am talking in the name of all the people who agree with me in the Spanish Wikipedia, specially those ones who are not able to come along here because they can't speak English. Best regards. --Dalton2 10:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC) P.S: Anyway, although I admit my mistake, I think that the most important thing here is far beyond my personal mistakes, i.e., a matter of forms.[reply]

Of course, the really important thing is to read an answer from the Foundation, a good one. --Millars 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. We have localized pages in wmf:Category:Languages and welcome even more. Cbrown1023 talk 01:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Well, I'm referring to translating all the WMF pages into Spanish, and keep them up to date. You do speak English, so you don't need to translate those pages to understand them, and so do all the English-speaking people. But, what about the non-English-speaking people? Will they have to wait until somebody comes along and decides (in an altruistic way) to translate them? What would it happen if nobody does it, or if they have to wait for weeks or months? I don't have that much time and I'm not motivated enough to do such a task by myself and keep the work up to date when I know that English-speaking people don't need to do that. Do you think it's fair? That makes people feel like they are playing in the second division. Do you think they would feel like donating money when they can't even understand what they are donating for and when they know that the only reply is: "it's not our problem if you don't understand us"? Regards. --Dalton2 07:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC) P.S: I'm waiting for a reply on this topic and also on the other point, i.e., the money details.[reply]

And, please, I don't want to be misunderstood: I didn't mean that bracelets aren't important, what I meant was that when you're talking to the whole community of women in the world you have to be cautious with the examples you choose, just that. --Dalton2 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalton2,

translation of organizational information has always been a volunteer endeavor, one which we can always improve at, and one you're more than welcome to get involved with. Before we would even consider paying people to translate content, I think it would be a much better investment to pay a translation coordinator, improve translation tools, develop clearer priorities about what needs to be translated, etc. We've talked about this possibility and may end up hiring someone to do this full-time.

Regarding transparency, see the activity reports, the associated monthly report card, the blog and techblog, our active participation on countless open mailing lists, IRC office hours, etc. Much of our actual work is being done in the open, with public code commits, public server admin logs, public issue tracking and of course countless public wikis. So you can in many cases literally track minute individual actions of a staff member. We even have a Twitter/identi.ca feed for all HR comings and goings. In terms of reporting and being accountable for the actual work that's being done, I'd love to see examples -- any examples -- of organizations that do a better job, ideally with links to their reports, public communication channels, activity feeds, and metrics.

Salaries reflect a private agreement between employee and employer, and outside governments, are generally regarded as private and personal information with the exception of disclosure requirements imposed on top earners. One has to understand the dynamics of the public sector to be entirely different from the private sector. Governments are heavily regulated, reduce managerial flexibility, and typically are designed to support employee longevity over performance, by means of standardized pay schedules and limited managerial discretion. In the private sector, flexibility and performance are regarded as key to enabling innovation and a competitive environment where high performers thrive.

The pressures on employees are also different. A private sector employee who accepts a significant pay cut to do a job they love will not want that information to be disclosed to their next employer, for fear of sabotaging their career. Imposing disclosure requirements in a competitive space with a higher turnover can therefore actually reduce your ability to recruit people who are interested in the work first and foremost and/or drive up your pay. Moreover, the lack of standardized pay makes internal conflict as a result of a full salary disclosure much more likely. Such disclosure would also reduce the ability to achieve cost savings through negotiation.

Non-profits are recognized to typically be somewhat in the middle between public and private sector. There's a greater need for accountability in spending, but NPO managers must be able to exercise reasonable discretion in hiring and performance-based compensation. This is, in the US, achieved by requiring non-profits to comply with certain disclosure requirements, which include salary disclosure of key employees in the form 990. The definition of key employee by the IRS requires that an individual meet 3 requirements: 1) Receives over $150K in reportable compensation, 2) has certain responsibilities and/or manages a certain % of activities, assets, income, expenses, etc. of the organization and 3) is one of the 20 employees (after satisfying the above) with the highest reportable compensation from the organization. Employees who do not meet all 3 of these tests are not listed on this part of the Form 990 as per the guidelines of the IRS.

Finally, regarding the reference to knitting as an example: Can you provide a citation for this? I'd like to see it in context..--Eloquence 04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer has been translated into Spanish and posted in the Spanish Wikipedia. As I said, I'm not talking in my own name, so I think I shouldn't go on by myself. The knitting example topic (friendship bracelets) was brought from here. Anyway, I think it's a topic with almost no importance when compared with the other topics presented here. Thank you very much for your reply. --Dalton2 11:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to note that this is not something Sue said (nor is it attributed to her). The examples were chosen by the author of the article.--Eloquence 02:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought, knowledge for change

Hi Wikimedia Foundation Feedback: here's a suggestion on a possible new fundraising source that may be both practical and able to generate significant funds, submitted for consideration.

Aside from the annual fundraising drive which appeals to many Wikipedians, its entirely possible to have a separate benefactor donation system linked to every article page. It would permit readers of Wikipedia articles to make payments to both the contributors of an article, and to Wikipedia itself.

I'd recommend involving an electronic payment company such as PayPal, Visa, Matercard, Amex... (companies which I have no employment relationship with) to administer the actual processing of payments. I would imagine that such a company might provide the electronic payment processing for Wikimedia on a pro bono, or at cost basis since it would likely not involve a great deal of effort on their part because it would use their existing infrastructures.

The Wikipedia encyclopaedias have several stakeholders -let's reward the two principals. I believe this would benefit both Wikimedia and the quality of the articles at the same time. The two most important stakeholders are, naturally, Wikimedia, which runs and enables the entire organization, and the editor/contributors who both create and upgrade the encyclopedia articles. One system can benefit both stakeholders, and at the same time provide a greater motivation for expansion of articles and their depth.

New donation system

1) DONATION SYSTEM PROCESSOR: a donation processing agreement is coordinated with a company such as PayPal. The processor would receive the payments from readers, aggregate them and then bill them monthly to the readers that volunteer to make such payments. As per the procedure schedule and furmula, the payments would be made to both the registered-contributors/editors and to Wikimedia itself.

2) ENROLEMENT OF DONATORS: the Wikipedia encyclopedia would offer readers, via a hyperlink, the opportunity to register themselves for microdonations, and then make such donations while reading its articles. Registration of benefactors would be handled by the processing organization, which would obtain valid credit card or bank account information from those wishing to donate. Doubtlessly, many readers have been impressed by the broad scope of articles available, and by the depth and quality of its many individual articles. Let's allow such readers the opportunity to provide a modest award to the article's contributors and to Wikimedia at the same time. The range of donations can be set with minimum/maximum limits: expressed in U.S. currency, perhaps 5 cents at the minimum, and perhaps $1 at the maximum, per article, that the reader wishes to award. For simplicity, such donations would be tax exempt: no formal donation paperwork would be issued regarding donations for income tax purposes.

If a reader found an article compelling and educationally satisfying to him/herself, the reader could click on a micropayment hyperlink button to make a payment, either for a default amount or another amount within the min/max range. After confirmation, that payment data would be registered with the payment processor. At the end of the month, the payment processor would aggregate the donations and bill the benefactors' registered credit cards or other accounts. Ex: if a casual reader read 20 quality articles in a month, and then donated perhaps 10 cents for each one, that person would be billed exactly $2.00 on his or her credit card or other account, paid to both the article's registered editors who wish to receive such payments, and also to Wikimedia (as applicable).

3) ENROLMENT OF ARTICLE WRITERS AND EDITORS: contributor/editors would be permitted to register themselves if they wish to receive such payments.

Payments could be make to valid PayPal, credit card or direct deposit bank accounts.
To reduce the operational costs, payments would not be made unless the registered contributor/editors had such accounts, i.e.: no time-consuming or expensive payment methods would be employed, such as mailed cheques.
Registration of the editors/contributors would be entirely voluntary; they would receive such payments only if they personally take the time to register themselves.
Any such payments would be classified as a contract service: no withholding taxes or other fees would be applied, and it would be up to the contributor/editors to register their own earnings if income taxes were applicable.
If a minimal payment transaction fee were required by the payment organization or the bank or credit card company to handle the cost of the payment service, it would be deducted from the payment. If a registered contributor/editor were to receive a payment of $25 and a 15 cent service fee was required to cover the transaction, then he/she would receive a net payment of $24.85. Wikimedia would obviously have the ability to veto the use of any payment service that proposed exorbitant rates for such payment transactions.

4) PAYMENT CALCULATIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS: Do Not Award Contributors By The Number Of Edits They Made To An Article That Has Received Donations! Some contributor/editors (of the 'starving artist' category) would likely change their edit style to inflate the number of edits performed to create or upgrade articles.

a) Award the payments on the basis of the percentage of article's length that the editor has written which has not been reverted. If the hypothetical article 'The History of Pie' was written and upgraded by a total of three award-registered editors, and a combined total of seven unregisterd/IP editors, and if editors A, B and C hypothetically wrote 20%, 15% and 10% respectively of that article, then at the end of the payment period Editor A would be awarded 20% of the aggregated payments collected, Editor B would receive 15%, Editor C would receive 10%, and the remaining 55% of the amounts collected would be awarded to Wikimedia itself.

b) The percentage each individual registered contributor/editor would receive would be calculated by the amount of editorial material he or she contributed, minus any materials reverted by others. If the case of 'The History of Pie', if Editor A had contributed 40% of the article, but 20% of his/her contributions had been reverted due to inaccuracies, then that person's net contribution to that article would be calculated at 40% - 20% = 20%, resulting in an award of 20% of the aggregated collections for that article.

5) NET BENEFITS:

Readers who wish to reward article writers for the efforts would now have a vehicle to do so with;
Article writers who have a need for some extra funding would be able to receive such payments;
Article writers would also be encouraged to create more articles and expand existing ones: exchanging 'knowledge for change';
Article writers would be encouraged to improve the quality of their articles, since the greater the quality, the greater the reward. Its exactly like busking: the more you impress and move your target audience, the more change they'll drop in your hat;
Many writers will not wish to register themselves to receive such payments; those portions, as well as the portions performed by IP editors will default to Wikimedia. If the hypothetical The History of Pie article receives an aggregate total of $100 in donations in a one month period, and only $45 is awarded to the registered editors, Wikimedia would benefit by receiving the remaining $55 for that article;
Finally, a certain percentage of unregistered IP editors may be encouraged to sign up for Wikipedia accounts! Hooray! More registered Wikipedians creates more Wikipedia involvement (hopefully of the positive type)—another plus!

Please contact me if I can be of further help in refining this suggestion. For your consideration, with best regards. HarryZilber

Hi! Please note that this page is only for discussing http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website. You're probably looking for the Wikimedia Forum or Talk:Fundraising_2010. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Condições de Uso

Contributions/187.55.207.58 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)dhaivatraj← Sitar ou Cítara? Bem as duas palavras estão corretas e podem ser usadas para o instrumento, porém deve ser esclarecido algumas notas: Sitar vem da palavra sânscrita: Sat Tar, sete cordas. É indiano, não persa(uma vez visto que o alicerce desta antiga civilização já era hindu, classificada na arqueologia como civilização indo-iraniana.) Sehtar é um instrumento persa de cordas. Cítara e Saltério são os instrumentos de cordas da europa(da antiga civilização indo-européia) sob uma caixa trapezoidal. Como podem ver Sehtar e Cítara advem da palavra Tar(fios ou cordas) sânscrita, a língua mãe. Quero deixar claro que não sou eu quem está falando, mas a história. Não a convencional. Existem Gharanas, escolas na Índia que falam que o Sitar vem do Sehtar ou Shahtar, do Sitar ser um aperfeiçoamento da milenar Tritantri Veena, e outras defendem a tese de que o Sitar sempre existiu na Índia como uma Veena aperfeiçoada com Tarab, cordas de ressonância ou simpáticas. Melhor seria falar Sitar mesmo, pois a palavra Sitara, na Índia significa Star, estrela. Dhaivat Raj-Sitarist: www.myspace.com/dhaivatraj[reply]

Regarding Home

"2008/2009 Annual Report", on the main page? How long has it been since the foundation wiki main page was updated? --Yair rand 01:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still the latest Annual Report. The 2009-10 Report is being finalized right now (late, due to our comm team working on the Strategic Plan document and the Tenth Anniversary during the last few months -- I think having a delayed AR is better than the alternative, which is to spend more $$$ on communications).--Eloquence 02:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Home, I think the two columns need to be balanced (i.e. the left column is too long). Salam. Bennylin 07:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Resolution:Biographies of living people/fi

Please add parameter |english=Resolution:Biographies of living people in the resolution/fi template, so that the header points to the English-language equivalent instead of the generic Resolutions page. Jafeluv 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks Jafeluv. PeterSymonds 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

You know how you guys have links within the text?

I thought it would be nice if when you hover your mouse over a link, to have a small popup window with a brief, at a glance explanation of whatever it was. Then you could be reading the text, and if a word came up you werent familiar with, you could get a concept of what it means quickly, while still reading the original text. Then, afterwards, you could go back and click the link to learn more with your enhanced perspective of the general material.

So yeah, if you could make that happen that would be swell.

On different Wikis, they have implemented a gadget called "navigation popups". You need to be logged-in to activate it. Do so by going to "my preferences" at the top of the page, selecting the "Gadgets" tab, then (on Meta) clicking the checkbox titled "Navigation popups". This is not a unified feature across different projects, so you need to enable it on each wiki you visit. Note that some of these projects don't have the feature at all, however. Kylu 18:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding chapters

(Moved to Wikimedia Forum)

Blog post error

I've just spotted an error in the blog post http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/02/16/2888/. It says:

"Since January 2010, the Contribution Team has grown from 10 participantes to 40"

but it should say:

"Since January 2011, the Contribution Team has grown from 10 participants to 40"

The errors are quite small but I think they still deserve fixing. Regards, Rock drum (talk·contribs) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was fixed. PeterSymonds 17:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this; to be perfectly accurate, it would actually really need to be December 2010, which was when the team started. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it was in January when it increased 4-fold, no? Rock drum (talk·contribs) 11:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikimedia:To-do

I can not understand that this site there have so many children they bannisent u'administrateur time without communicating with no real reason was just wondering if it is a contest in a circ bani us or each new user 's is the shit of this site

Thank you for your query. Unfortunately this page solely deals with the Foundation Wiki website itself, rather than our global projects. You may want to post your question to Wikimedia Forum instead. Best, PeterSymonds 17:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Terms of Use

I would like to contribute information on the legal issues arising from Dexia involvement in two Madoff related funds financed by Dexia. They are Rafale and Blue Star Fund, in which Dexia is being sued. This is important news that should be added. As for Dexia in Israel, it is contradictory to the original strategy as related to the creation of Dexia Bahrain.

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

im trying to find uno the first actually card game that was made from 1971 to 1992

Thank you for your query. Unfortunately this page solely deals with the Foundation Wiki website itself, rather than our global projects. You may want to post your question to the Wikipedia reference desk instead. Best, PeterSymonds 08:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

Maps of UK still show the old M10 as M10 not A 414 as it is now. Roderic McNeill Northampton.

Thank you for your query. Unfortunately this page solely deals with the Foundation Wiki website itself, rather than our global projects. You may want to post your question to the Wikipedia reference desk instead. Regards, ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wikipedia omission of fact.

I am interested as to why there is no current biographical listing for Kathryn Bolkovac. She exposed an international sex trafficking ring in post-war Bosnia, won a law suit against a major international company for wrongful termination and now has a motion picture about her experience. Can someone please illuminate for me why she doesn't have a listing?

You mean a Wikipedia article? Sounds like a question for Wikipedia:Project:Village pump (miscellaneous), if anywhere, but I think I can answer here: Note that the page has never been deleted. I.e. it's not there because no one has made it yet.

I think the bottom line is that if you have reliable sources about her, her Bosnia activities and the movie, you can start a new article. Please do - sounds like you're the person for the job. --Chriswaterguy 11:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created the article en:Kathryn Bolkovac, and linked it with some other articles, such as "The Whistleblower". Regards, 190.64.176.168 12:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity of attribution requirement

Please see the concern I raised at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83 #Attributing Wikipedia.

In brief: based on a literal reading of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use it looks like someone can just copy a whole Wikipedia page, add a link to the WP article in the "External links" section without explicitly attributing WP, and that satisfies the requirement as described. I'm sure that's not actually the intention, but it seems like a problem. I know one wiki which is reusing Wikipedia content, simply linking the Wikipedia page under "External links," based on this interpretation. --Chriswaterguy 11:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Terms of Use provide simple guidelines and refer explicitly to the text of the license for details. Both the guidelines ("provide credit to the authors") and the license itself are clear about the intent of the attribution requirement. I'd assume good faith about attribution in the External Links section, but a gentle reminder that it's potentially confusing and misleading regarding the text origin and attribution seems appropriate.--Eloquence 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Job openings/Movement Communications Manager

"... and general information to the 1,000,000+ strong Wikimedia community." ← What is this about? --MZMcBride 04:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an "official" number somewhere on how many active* wikimedians there are? Kylu 15:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* - also, define active.

Looks like Erik got it. All better now. --MZMcBride 00:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Contact us

Cocoa,Fl. got its name from a billboard advertising Cocoa at the train station. There was no name for the village then so they (the people on the train) started calling it the cocoa stop. The name caught on and finally was officially named Cocoa.

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Monthly_donations/en

"Please help us reach our 2010 goal" needs updating to 2011.

As noted on w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#http:.2F.2Fwikimediafoundation.org.2Fwiki.2FMonthly_donations.2Fen

Chzz 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was added from wmf:Template:2010Thermometer/en, which was created for the 2010/11 fundraiser. So I've removed the masthead until the next drive, when there will probably be a new template made. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job openings/Data Analyst and Researcher

wmf:Job openings/Data Analyst and Researcher#Candidate skill requirements: "BS/MS in computer science and/or mathematics, or equivalent experience". Is a BSc or MSc in statistics not acceptable? I would have thought it would be ideal. Qwfp 09:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I guess that statistics counts as or equivalent experience Huib talk ^Abigor 09:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But a statistics BSc or MSc appears just as relevant to this job as a degree in computer science or mathematics, if not more so. So why should someone with a statistics degree be required to have work experience as well when someone with a computer science or mathematics degree isn't? 62.31.61.207 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just how it's phrased. It could be cumbersome to give an exhaustive list of all possible majors that would really fit the job opening -- just the "best degrees" (usually the most generic degrees that would apply) are listed on open positions. This may mean that statistics degrees aren't something that they're interested in, or it may mean that they didn't want to have a big block of possible majors listed. If you think you'd be a good fit then apply and make a case for yourself. :) Banaticus 20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

there in no specific reason, but entire bible is of belief and facts which our generation not seen , and fighting for unknown reason which can not be answered by any one in the world ,because entirely is a day dream for examples i can prove a person on the other phone line ,but what about the god in general

Regarding Capítulos locales

The site has a broken link ... Specifically ... other versions ... Spanish, which refers to the Civil Code of Argentina. Than you :)

Under section "Argentina: Wikimedia Argentina", the wikilink at the end should be [[:es:Código Civil de la República Argentina|Código Civil de la República Argentina]] instead of [[es:Código Civil de la República Argentina|Código Civil de la República Argentina]]. (Initial colon in link). Thanks for the input. :) 12.186.80.1 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Cbrown1023 talk 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Counsel is still listed as an open job

Wikimedia:Job openings/General Counsel still lists General Counsel as an open position, although the Signpost says that Geoff Brigham was hired to fill that position and Geoff is listed on the Wikimedia:Staff page (although no contact information is given) and he doesn't seem to have a user account yet). Shouldn't that job opening be taken down? Banaticus 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only open positions are listed on wmf:Job openings. Old job opening pages are not deleted so that the job description pages are public and transparent. Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key facts

Hi there, I was wondering where is the source for the 2 Key facts pdfs in the Press Room? We definitely need the Italian version.--Elitre 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elitre, I've posted the .odt files for the key facts documents on the WMF wiki, here. They can also be found by going to the 'other materials' link in the 'press materials' box at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room JayWalsh 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had incorrectly assumed that as other languages were mentioned, other linguistic versions were already available. However, I'd translate it more gladly if I knew where those data come from, I'm more comfortable linking external sources (NPOV...). Thanks. --Elitre 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) PS: you might want to publish data more updated than these.[reply]

Regarding Special:ContributionHistory/en

There used to be live donations with comments visible, instead of a redirect. Has the page been moved anywhere else or will it just not be available any more? -- Menti fisto 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken down during the last Fundraiser, supposedly temporarily while it was being fixed. I checked in with some of the staff at several points during the Fundraiser but I always got the same "hopefully fixing it soon" response, so I presume it's indefinitely down. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian wikipedia

Уважаемая редакция Википедии. На Вас давно зарабатывают деньги. Для того, чтобы оказать вам финансовую помощь, следует избавиться от тех, кто на Вас паразитирует. У меня есть доказательства недобросовестности действия администратора Aleksa Smotrova. Атака идет на статью "Оперативное карате". Однако предварительно на сайт www.operativnoe-karate.ru пришло требование о выплате на третий счет отступных, в противном случае высказана угроза о начале дискредитации сайта и темы и владельцев сайта. Эта атака действительно началась через Википедию. Осуществляют ее Aleks Smotrov, Litl Maus. Вся история "войны" зафиксирована. Заработайте лучше на этом сами. В противном случае возникают сомнения в том, что это не коммерческий проект. Оставляю за собой право начать публичную дискуссию. С уважением, Александр Травников (operativnoe-karate@ mail.ru).

...and the proof you speak of is where? Seb az86556 08:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation fellow needs guidance

I have been told that User:LauraHale is a Wikimedia Foundation fellow who is also in a graduate program at an Austrialian Unversity. Assuming that is true, I would hope that she would conduct herself in a professional manner that would reflect well on the Foundation. She nominated two articles for GA on the English Wikipedia Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands, and has had difficult relations when different people tried to explain the deficiencies of those articles. When I raised grammar concerns, she argued that New Zealand grammar is different from the rest of the world. She even claimed that en:Olympic sports means something different in British English than is described in the Wikipedia article. When I had a British editor explain that they had the same meaning, she ignored it. When I raised concerns about "close paraphrasing" in the article, and a work plan to check for it, she became extremely defensive. She tends to read this very quickly and miss important facts, as a result she has made two postings outside the reviews that are a drastic distortion of the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&action=historysubmit&diff=420291085&oldid=420288992 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FRacepacket_2&action=historysubmit&diff=420308748&oldid=420124218 Could a staff member please review them and counsel her that we are all trying to get along and be professional? Perhaps she would wish to strike them out or withdraw them? Thanks, --User:Racepacket on the English Wikipedia.

Well, Hale hath no fury....

I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest that she's a Wikimedia Fellow. I'm not sure anyone finds her recent behavior appropriate, but it isn't really within the Wikimedia Foundation's remit to review her actions and counsel her, given that she isn't working for them or representing them. If you find any pages/comments/etc. that indicate that she is a Wikimedia Fellow, please share them below so that they can be examined and addressed as necessary. --MZMcBride 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MZ is correct, and I'd particularly second his point about the WMF's role here. There is a list of Fellows past and present here on Meta and Laura is not on it. Can you point out where you were told this? Steven Walling at work 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, if this is an inappropriate forum for this concern, please direct me to the correct one. I was lead to believe this was an online submission form to the WMF staff.) English Wikipedia User:Hawkeye7 said she was commissioned to write about editing Wikipedia. Ms. Hale also claimed to be working under an unnamed supervisor to whom Ms. Hale is attributing incorrect information about Wikipedia's policy on "close paraphrasing." Perhaps "grantee" is more appropriate than fellow. -- 06:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is actually a page to give feedback on wikimediafoundation.org, not a general forum for discussion of Foundation issues, but don't worry about it. Anyway, if Hawkeye7 meant she was commissioned to write about Wikipedia as a fellowship at the Wikimedia Foundation, that is incorrect. Perhaps she was commissioned by her university; I think when Laura said "supervisors" she meant at her university. But in general the firm answer is that she's not working for the Wikimedia Foundation (she's not a grantee either, as you can see at the index of grants, though grantees are definitely not people who report to the Foundation...) Hope that helps, Steven Walling at work 07:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, things like this should probably be asked on foundation-l for the quickest response. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to weigh in. I apologise if this is not the right place. This section was pointed out to me by three different parties and as it appears to have gotten longer, I wanted to comment to clarify. I'm not a foundation fellow. (I may have applied for it but I can't recall.) The extent to which I've been involved with WMF is I was involved with the Wikipedia Screencast project, where WMF paid my airfare out to California to attend. I helped contribute to this proposal but I could not attend the event myself. I consider a few people who work(ed) for WMF to be friends. I'm not officially connected to WMF in any way. I am a member of the national chapter in Australia. I have a grant request outstanding with them. (There are things on my end that need addressing.) They are not WMF.

I've been working on creating a workshop that encourages sport people and people working with sport organisations to contribute to wikis in general and Wikipedia specifically. I've worked some with people connected to the national chapter. I've had extensive support from my university department to help create these workshops. As I'm generally not Wikipedia's biggest fan, I've not contributed extensively to Wikipedia before. I felt that before I tried to encourage others to use Wikipedia, I should finally become active and try to work through some of the processes that Wikipedia contributors deal with such as creating new articles, learning how to cite sources and trying to get an article through the FAC process. The latter was to better understand these benefits. My department has been encouraging me in the latter, as I have been told by at least one member of the department that it would be a bit prestigious to have some one connected to their department who helped guide an article about a major Australian sport to featured status.

As for the accusation of plagiarism made by Racepacket, I was deeply concerned about this. I'm a PhD student in sport studies. Such accusations are highly problematic. In a university context, I could get into big trouble if I was found guilty. (The accusation of inappropriate paraphrasing was the final blow to the derailing of the good article process.) Racepacket alleged inappropriate paraphrasing on the good article review in one of the few areas that relied extensively on book based citations that he did not have access to. The area that he raised concerns in I felt was covered by what is not plagiarism: "Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution." Given that it appeared to me that Racepacket had rejected that line (how many ways can you express that the centre can only stand in the centre third of the court? How many ways can address the rules of a game?), I asked one of my PhD supervisors for clarity as I wanted to avoid any accidental plagiarism. I mentioned the aforementioned sections, pointed out that I could have around 100 different sources for that (except Wikipedia frowns upon 100 citations like that) and asked for guidance on whether or not it was plagiarism and how to handle it. As I had repeatedly mentioned Wikipedia policy to Racepacket and Racepacket had not addressed those citations, I felt that to make sure I was behaving ethically in regards to appropriate citing or not, I asked one of my PhD supervisors for their opinion on how to deal with situations like that and how to cite things.

Anyway, that's the full context for my remarks and my affiliations. I apologise for any confusion. If this is the wrong place to address these concerns, please feel free to (re)move them. I'm just a little bit on edge because I feel like I have been unfairly accused of plagiarism, where the accuser has not provided any substantial proof of this accusation and has not retracted the accusation. This accusation is colouring my judgement some what. :( --LauraHale 13:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your affiliations. Please stop using the term "plagiarism," which is a term that I deliberately avoided. My concern was raised by reading a discussion on the article's talk page regarding using the Australia Netball website text to reword the position descriptions. When language is lifted from a source in that manner, it is best to use a quotation rather than a paraphrase. I fully agree with the example of "John Smith was born on X date", but if there is an element of literary expression, it does not fall into that narrow exception. For example, "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains." has literary aspects in part because there are other ways of saying it. When writing about sport rules, every word is important and it is hard to paraphrase without changing the meaning (and future quibbling). So there is a temptation to closely paraphrase the rules, which leads to trouble. Thus, my recommendation to quote the source. See, WP:PARAPHRASE Hence, when you earlier wrote that "your supervisor" was the one who misinformed you, I assumed you meant at WMF, and I came here because I wanted to correct any incorrect views your "supervisor" has about Wikipedia policy. Racepacket 15:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask you to go to WP:COIN and disclose your paid editing / research project there.

My final suggestion is that you reconsider your project's design. Wikipedia is a complex institution, but it is not a "fan" wiki, and no single editor "owns" an article. The Netball article began on August 31, 2001, and you only began editing it on February 26, 2011. So, although you should take pride in whatever you achieve with the article it will be a group achievement, with most of the contributors unrelated to your university. It has taken years for an article such as Netball to become a "Featured Article" so I am not sure that your project is feasible in the time frame you propose. Thanks again for your explanation. Racepacket 15:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

When you have concerns regarding inappropriate paraphrasing, you are making a plagiarism accusation. See wp:Wikipedia:Plagiarism. While you may have chosen to deliberately use other words to convey the idea, it does not get around that fact. For me, I cannot get read past anything else you've said as you accused me of plagiarism and have yet to substantiate it. There was no plagiarism. There was no inappropriate paraphrasing that you have managed to prove. Please retract this statement or please prove this statement. At this point, as you've taken it to meta and as bill compton is using it as part of your defence on your request for comment, as you're continuing to bring up this unsubstantiated allegation, I'm beginning to feel seriously harassed here. I did nothing wrong with my wording usage. I've had the wording usage verified as not plagiarism by Hawkeye7. If need be I can have it verified by jayvdb. You made the accusation of inappropriate paraphrasing, re: plagiarism. You've mentioned it here. You've mentioned it elsewhere. Having mentioned it here, knowing that this accusation is potential grounds for me to get kicked out of my programme, having mentioned it here with the WMF to try to get an employer to take action against me, it feels like harassment. Please stop and please retract the accusation. --LauraHale 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your comment. Are you now saying the the WMF is your "employer?" They just denied it.--Racepacket 01:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying that it appears you believed that I was a WMF fellow and you tried to get WMF, the organisation you believed I worked for, to take action against me. That constitutes harassment. --LauraHale 09:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now said for the tenth time that I accused you of "plagarism." Please provide a diff reference where I said that. You cannot, because I never did. I did say that I would check the article for close paraphrasing, which you agreed was something that a good article reviewer should do, but you have became very upset by my raising the issue and providing at least one example of where there was close paraphrasing in the article. I don't know who was responsible for the problematic edit, but equating the discovery of a close paraphrase in an article that was edited by dozens of people with an accusation directed against LauraHale is a violation of WP:OWN on your part. It will never be "LauraHale's article."

You propose verification by "jayvdb," but I am not familiar with that term. Please explain. I have also explained to you how Wikipedia's requirements are most stringent that just U.S. copyright law,[1] so we need to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. --Racepacket 01:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, this is not the appropriate venue. The first words you used in this matter were: "I have been told that…" It was immediately clarified by an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation that what you had been told was incorrect. As soon as it was established that Laura is not financially connected to the Foundation, as you had believed, this page became an inappropriate venue for your concerns. Please let it drop. -Pete F 04:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Annual Report

On this page is written "July 1, 2009 to June 30, 20010" with a mistake on 20010 Symac 08:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the note. --MZMcBride 08:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark Policy

I noticed the following apparent typos:

RE: Trademark Policy#Overall Guidelines for Printed Materials and Web Sites:
- 'use Wikimedia Marks engage in noncommercial fundraising' -> 'use Wikimedia Marks to engage in noncommercial fundraising'
RE: Trademark Policy#Related and Derivative Works of the Wikimedia Content:
- 'Our main concern is that consumers not be confused as to whether the content is a derivative work or is the initial Wikimedia content are.' -> 'Our main concern is that consumers not be confused as to whether the content is a derivative work or is the initial Wikimedia content ~~are~~.'
RE: Trademark Policy#Linking:
- 'e.g., suggesting that the material Wikimedia Project content when in fact it is yours.' -> 'e.g., suggesting that the material is Wikimedia Project content when in fact it is yours.'
RE: Trademark Policy#Domain Names:
- 'use a Wikimedia Mark in a project local for your region,' -> 'use a Wikimedia Mark in a project local ~~for~~ to your region,'
RE: Trademark Policy#Wikimedia Marks and Merchandise:
- '(absent express permission from the Foundation)' -> '(~~absent~~in the absence of express permission from the Foundation)'
- 'A modified mark also would raise the possibility of' -> 'A modified mark would also raise the possibility of'

It's rather laborious having to report them in this way, but I understand there are good reasons for protecting the pages there. --Trevj 11:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

À propos de Wikimédia 2011

Wikimédia 2011 en Israël ? Je trouve un peu dommage d'aller organiser la célébration de notre beau projet dans un pays qui est quand même en permanence à moitié en guerre, d'après ce qu'on lit. Non mais, franchement ! Il n'y avait pas d'autre pays dans le monde où monter un tel événement ? Pour un événement tel que Wikimania, je pense qu'il serait à l'avenir souhaitable qu'un projet aussi humaniste que Wikimédia ait l'ambition de choisir ses lieux d'événements non pas seulement en fonction de leurs facilités balnéaires, mais aussi en fonction de critères tels que : le respect des droits de l'homme et des minorités, le respect de certaines valeurs démocratiques, la corruption régnant dans le pays... C'est dommage, parce que, à part ça, j'aurais bien aimé venir. J'espère que ce n'est que partie remise :-/ 78.250.240.178 10:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Terms of Use

nuk ka ndonje person qe te shtoje me shume rreth fosilevE???Si p.sh ku ka me shume fosile ne te gjithe boten?Per cfare sherbejne?Si matet koha tek fosilet?Ku gjenden foilet ne gjendjen e tyre me te mire?Per fare i kane sherbyer shkences?etj...Nuk gjendet ndonje person qe di tju pergjigjet ketyre pyetjeve ne menyre te hollesishme,ne kete menyre ndihmon edhe komunitetin,sidomos nxenesit qe i nevojiten me shume inf.per te ardhmen e tyre.... 
                                 me respekt.......

Regarding wikimediafoundation.org

Bold text

   As catacumbas de Odessa

Cidade ucraniana , nas margens do mar Negro,tem no seu subsolo 2.500 quilometros de passgens subterrânas o maior conjunto de catacumbas do mundo