Talk:Wikimedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
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 prior 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 (http://eldred.cc)] 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 (http://wikimediafoundation.org/) 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)
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
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 (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-June/010690.html) 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)
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 (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l) or wikitech-l (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l) mailing lists. - IMSoP 17:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why is the page at this name?
Is there a reason, other than nobody having thought of it, that this page isn't at Wikimedia Foundation? That seems to be the official name of the organisation, so having the redirect go from there to here seems somewhat odd (not to mention unnecessarily adding to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia/MediaWiki confusion)... - IMSoP 17:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- "Wikimedia" is the more common name, but "Wikimedia Foundation" is the real name, so it could be at either really. There are a lot of links to both forms. Angela. 04:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Wow this is my first wikipedia commet<math>2+2=5<math>google
