Talk:Press release Logos - Verba Volant

Is that a press release from the Wikimedia Foundation? If yes, why doesn't the name appear in the first place? Since when are we working on press releases for other companies? notafish }<';> 18:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Logos press release. As Verba Volant is done together with the WMF, it is not a good idea NOT to mention wikipedia. Furthermore, the awareness of the Italian public about Wikipedia is not that great, this helps to raise awareness of Wikipedia in Italy. GerardM 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a date on that press release and why does it appear as if it was already sent to the press ? Afaik, I asked just this morning that it be put on wiki so we could modify the content. I am not aware that it has been published yet. I found the mail about this press release after I came back from a week off, and simply asked if there was an update about that. Yesterday, I understood that no one had yet approved it. I personally did not. I'd like some stuff to be reworked beforehand. Anthere 18:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware it has not been sent yet. GerardM 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so is it better to add a note "this PR hasn't been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board yet" or so? --Aphaia ++ 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it has gone past members of the board. I know that it was send to the board and I know it has Jimbo's blessing. GerardM 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?!? A serious draft for a press release? If so, it's the worst press release mentioning Wikipedia that I ever read. It's boring to death and raises more questions than it answers:

Is Wikipedia really involved in this, and how? If Wikimedia (organization and/or community) is involved, I would like to know more about it.
Why is "the publication of a daily quote" a "huge step forwards in Open Content"?

Anyway, I strongly oppose to making this "press release" a Wikimedia press release. Of course Logos may publish it, but please without the section "About the Wikimedia Foundation" and without our contact details. -- Akl 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is the first step in a process that will also make the dictionary content of Logos GFDL. The dictionary content is a body of work where Logos worked some twenty years on and, it contains between 7 and 10 miljon lemmas. The point as I mentioned earlier is that Wikipedia is not well known in Italy and this will help. FYI it has also gone past the Italian chapter. GerardM 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to what? -- Arne (akl) 07:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a huge step forwards in open content as Logos gave out from one day to the other 1243 quotes translated into really many languages - in case of Verba Volant of 30 September: over 50 languages. 1243 quotes means almost five years of work by approx. 120 translators all over the world. Considering the problems that are there with some wikiquote projects: well Verba Volant could well help to sort out many things on that end, since it is a huge collection of quotes of various authors. --Sabine 19:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another neverending story[edit]

Well it is not a problem for me to take off the contact address of the Wikimedia Foundation like requested this morning by Jimbo after an ok from yesterday. Anyway the press release was not sent out by now but it was sent for approval asking for desired changes on 17 of September as it should have been sent out on that date. It took 12 days to know that the number o chapters was wrong (I took that one from an older press release) and that there should not be an "about" mentioning and no contact address. I suppose that you very much know what that means and that there will be no problems. I am going to come back on this and the questions above after having done my work and and after having sent the Press Release out. I'll not be able to come back to this page before having done this, so if there's something urgent, please contact me by e-mail. Thank you! Ciao, --Sabine 07:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a clarification. Sabine wrote just before I left for a week, so I had no time to answer to her request. When I came back, I saw no mails in my mailbox on the issue, so asked per mail what was the status of Sabine request. I also had no idea it had been put on internal while it was away, and knowing that Sabine did not have access to internal, I asked that it be put on meta for consideration. I thought it was not a secret... and I have increasingly problems to handle things done by mail, given the number of daily mails that circulate. It is much easier on a wiki. Since Sabine could not do it herself, Gerard put the press release on meta, and let the date at which it was probably drafted.

Yesterday, by mail, before I had time to see it on meta, Jimbo gave his approval, but several people were not happy at all about this press release, nor with the way it was handled actually. So, please allow me to press on the issue, to clarify things and seek for more efficiency and better process next time.

I think this press release should not be done by the Foundation for a simple good reason, the Foundation did nothing for this to happen and the fact this letter exists is not the sign of any specific collaboration as is. This is mostly the sign of our content being reused in a bright way, but many other organisations or websites are also doing the same. This implies our goals are good and our content are reused. It does not imply any specific collaboration with the Foundation. This is naturally independant of any further collaboration, I just focus on THIS specific issue, the letter.

The second point I would like to insist on, and this was brought to my attention by Elian (thank you) is that we did not use the right procedure here. The only think really relevant to the board to decide is whether this is a collaboration (in such case a common press release makes sense) or not a collaboration (in such case, the Foundation has no reason to be in the press release). Once the board has agreed it is a collaboration and deserve a press release, then the issue should be handed out to Elian, our press officer, so that she can coordinate and organise the press release in the best way. It is neither the unique job of Logos... nor really the job of the board. So, all what was really needed from the board is approval or opposition. And if approval, involvement of Elian. Yesterday, I seeked opinion of Elian on the matter, but I truely did it too late.

Hopefully, we will manage this better next time :-) Clearly, there were two issues mixed together, one being "whether there should be a common press release" and the second being "is the current draft okay or not okay". And the two issues should not have been involving the same people really.

And Sabina... thanks for your work :-) Anthere 11:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no mails in my mailbox on the issue, so asked per mail what was the status of Sabine request. I also had no idea it had been put on internal while it was away

Sorry - I hadn't realized you weren't copied into all the mails. Some of the discussion happened on IRC, but generally there was a complete lack of communication (especially concerning the question of whether Logos are accepted as a partner now or not), so it's more that the emails didn't happen, not that you didn't see them. I did email chapter-l to say it was being placed on the internal wiki.

I think this press release should not be done by the Foundation for a simple good reason, the Foundation did nothing for this to happen

It depends what you class as "the Foundation". Is all the work Gerard, Sabine, and Sj put into making this happen not classed as a Foundation activity? Does it need to be done by the actual Board for it to be an official Foundation press release? What about the all the mails related to the use of the Wikipedia logo in the first trial Verba Volent mail? Those were by Board members, so I really don't think you can say the Foundation did nothing here.

It does not imply any specific collaboration with the Foundation.

Yes, but it should imply that if there is a collaboration, which there is... but I still don't know if (and if not, why not), we are not announcing that. What about the meetings Jimmy and others have had with Logos? How are they less of a partner than, say, Kennisnet?

The only think really relevant to the board to decide is whether this is a collaboration

Is it up to the board? Or is up to Jimmy (in his role as President rather than as a member of the Board)? The fact that no one on the Board other than Jimmy even knows right now if there is or is not a collaboration going on here surely shows that this is not for the board to decide.

Angela 11:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "I did not even get a no" was not about Anthere or Angela. I just don't want to make names as I don't like it.

As I already said: I have no probs in sending things out without mentioning the Foundation - I only found it correct to inform you and to see if you think it would be better to be mentioned in case there are questions related to Wikipedia - well this is not the case, so there's no problem. It would have been easy to say from the first moment: send it out without the About + contact of the foundation. And I repeat I am not talking about Angela or Anthere here - nor Jimbo who was involved only after some mails when no-one knew what to say.

Ciao! --Sabine 19:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry for being very short and not taking the time to write really all about it - I just have to still follow up some discussions on my other mailing lists - from CAT-Tools to translators - to languages - and it seems as if all wake up in the same moment - well' that's life. Ciao! --Sabine 19:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]