← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

• The notification seems very abrupt and despite the thank you, quite hollow; "I am having administrator access to accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective immediately". Had this have been run through publicity or anyone with experience running a volunteer program, they would have pointed out the gratitude expressed was kurt and not proportionate to the service and hours given by the community. Furthermore, the announcement should have been made months in advance and some reasonable explanation should have been given. Mkdw^talk 06:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WMF wiki versus Meta wiki. I haven't read any of the discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list. My opinion though is that I don't have a problem with how the WMF handles its own wiki. My problem is with Meta. It is a near useless wiki that few people use relative to the number of Wikipedia editors. Meta should be moved to a subdomain on English Wikipedia. Maybe meta.wikipedia.org. This way the WMF can get some much broader interaction with Wikipedia editors than with just the few willing to use Meta and its separate watchlist. English is the international language and Meta operates mainly in English now. Saying Meta is more international and accessible is ridiculous. Far more editors from around the world use the English Wikipedia watchlist than use the Meta watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Tony points out below, you're kind of displaying your ignorance here (in a few ways). :-) You should read the mailing list discussion to better understand the underlying issues regarding control of wikimediafoundation.org.

    Regarding Meta-Wiki, whether the wiki is located at meta.wikimedia.org or returns to its previous home of meta.wikipedia.org, it makes absolutely no difference if features such as cross-wiki watchlists aren't implemented, according to the view you put forward. Simply moving the wiki would be both disruptive and harmful, with no benefit.

    There's great virtue in having a global site that can serve a global movement made up of Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, Wikisources, Wikiversities, Wikidata, Commons, Wikivoyages, etc. And many people, across all Wikimedia wikis, see that. I hope one day you're among them. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming that meta.wikipedia.org would utilize the English Wikipedia watchlist. If not, then wikipedia.org/meta might be used as the URL. That would definitely be on the English Wikipedia watchlist. Both you and Tony missed my point. My point was that pie-in-the-sky beliefs that Meta's current location, and separate watchlist, will somehow magically involve people from more Wikimedia Projects, and "serve the whole Wikimedia community in all of its linguistic and cultural diversity" is wrong. Just believing something does not make it so. The evidence is that Meta discussions, and I have participated in some, do not get as broad participation as on almost any discussion on English Wikipedia. English Village Pumps for example. Many people from all over the world, who speak a large variety of languages, have user pages and user talk pages on English Wikipedia. They check their English Wikipedia watchlist far more than the Meta watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who have read Yochai Benkler's Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm might like to consider to what extent this action is an affirmation of WMF as a Firm. In end it is not so much about how conflict is handled, but more about whether the trajectory of WMF will inevitably develop in a way at odds with the community because it has a fundamentally different way of being organised and of how it sees the world.--Leutha (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeshifter, Meta began as an offshoot from en.WP, but now has grown to (supposedly) serve the whole Wikimedia community in all of its linguistic and cultural diversity. Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above to MZMcBride. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter ... Meta would benefit from your presence. Tony (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta would benefit from the presence of many people. There have been many recruiting efforts to get people to go to Meta. They haven't worked over the long term due to its separate watchlist. People stop checking it. Meta needs to go to the people. The people are at English Wikipedia. Including people from around the world, who speak many languages, who have user pages and user talk pages on English Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• German chapter report in the "in briefs"—it says $8.6M, but I remember seeing a graph with a projected €8M, and a table immediately below with 7 point something million euros. I was confused. Tony (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a donor and someone who travels frequently, $40,000 is an excessive amount of donor money for 10 people. I hope Wikimedia learns to make more reasonable expenses in the future. I do think this issue needs more exposure. 74.202.39.3 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post here (and some of the related discussion about this issue) reminds me a little of <http://blog.xkcd.com/2013/05/15/dictionary-of-numbers/>. In a vacuum, $40,000 for ten people means very little. Does that only include lodging and airfare? What does it include or exclude? And, as I understand it, the budgeted amount may not reflect the actual amount eventually spent (money can usually be returned).

There's a newly created Funds Dissemination Committee (including an ombudshuman position that's currently vacant and undergoing an election). If you want "more exposure," perhaps you should consider getting involved. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the $40,000 figure was an estimate used for costing purposes. When developing costings for something like this its actually good practice to assume relatively high costs to ensure that enough money is allocated. The story notes that the actual expenditure is likely to be lower. It's not terribly difficult to rack up a $4000 per person estimate for a trip involving intercontinental airfares as well as a week's worth of three star standard accommodation in an expensive city. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea why "ombudsperson" isn't acceptable. It's gender neutral, it's in the OED, it has a million hits in Google Books. What's the problem? Ah well. Maybe I'll run for office and mandate that change. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... yeah, because that's how the Board works. You get a seat and then you can just mandate change. In reality, a name change for the Ombudsman commission presumably requires the consent of the current commission and a Board resolution.

As I said in the relevant discussion, the overall name could use reconsideration. "Ombudsperson" is a very awkward word and the idea put forward by some scholars that "ombudsman" is sexist is genuinely offensive to some portion of Wikimedians, I think, as it defies a basic understanding of English, Swedish, history, and common sense in favor of hyper-political correctness—in their view. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]