Foundation wiki feedback/main/2006

Where are the STATS?

Until recently a very interesting page was available here -

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesGt1500Bytes.htm

Now it says: you don't have permission to access /EN/TablesArticlesGt1500Bytes.htm on this server. Who can tell why? What has happened with my (or anyone's) permission? 81.25.53.62 10:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

They had to be temporarily disabled because a supposedly private wiki accidentally got in there and the stats page contained confidential article titles. It'll be back once that issue has been fixed. Angela 12:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very fuzzy explanation. --210.4.69.4 07:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they became too important and therefore sensitive. They are now confidential.--Tequendamia 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't the stats themselves that are confidential. It is the page titles from private wikis that accidentally got in there that are confidential. As soon as the private wikis are removed, the stats will come back. Angela 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It means, that these stats will never be back? -213.175.91.220 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. They'll be back as soon as someone can remove the private wikis. Angela 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Access has been reopened [1]. Korg + ⁺ 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Austria & Germany

Fundamentally wrong regional terms for both countries

Seemingly, already the basic articles regarding both countries suffered from some lack of consideration for their political systems.

Their larger political regions - despite the scale difference between both countries - have several aspects in common. And their specifics are connoted to one definite term. Like the larger parts of the USA are named states, those of Switzerland are, also on wikimedia sites, referred to as cantons, those of Austria and Germany are federal provinces.

Instead, wherever such a region is mentioned not by its individual name but by a general term, on English pages of wikimedia sites, I always have to read of "states". This is wrong not only, as some might presume, from sort of an accurateness-fetishist's point of view.

It is fundamentally wrong in many a context: legal structure, tax system, aso. And it is deeply puzzling, as "state" is the most frequent used term for the entire country in each of them (not nation, which is used rather philosophically), especially when referring to it as large(r) unit in a legal or political context. Moreover, once the European Union will have managed to digest the integration of its new members, the democratization of its institutions, the re-organization of its entire structure, and eventually to successfully found (sort of) a Union's constitution, "member state" might increasingly be replaced by the shorter expression "state". Then, Austria inhabited by some 8.5 million peope should be referred to as a state that - strictly contradictional to the term used on site - itself again consists of states? Not only that this term might give users who flat-footedly or curiously drop by the most untrue impression of small regions aggrandizing themselves equal to UN members: the wrong term's perpetuation would be a strong contribution to make language a means of MISunderstanding.

When I first discovered this, I planned to re-edit the article. But having found out this mistake already spread like a virus across all wikimedia sites,

- I neither intend to start a Sisyphus effort not knowing where my corrections might be made undone, i.e. because otherwise some links might get out of order, thus myself being partly counterproductive and maybe never getting the corrections finished,

- nor do I want to produce another Babel effect by overlooking too many pages which need this correcting, thus puzzling information seekers even more: they'd find incompatible sorts of word choice, perhaps getting the notion that wikimedia is unprecise or even undependable.

My question: which is the best way to make the necessary changes -- as reliable, quick and complete as possible?

Furthermore, there are particularities regarding status and internal organization of Vienna (federal capital, city authority - and a federal province) as well as, I think, Bavaria (free ... state!), Berlin, and towns with a special status (I'm not sure if there's only the category of member towns of the Hanseatic League). On all this, there might already be articles published on wikimedia sites, but several relevant facts still missing, and perhaps one or the other detail deserves review.

A note from me: The entities you mention are generally called "Länder" in German. And they are not mere provinces, they are states by themselves, with their own constitutions etc. Most of them existed before the Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949, and they did not abandon their state character then and become mere provinces of a national state. The situation is the same today. in Austria, it's the same, the nine Länder are also small states by themselves. --Rosenzweig 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing for different levels

I am a teacher and only occasional user so this comment on Wikipedia may be unneeded or in the wrong spot but in line with the stated goals of the project it would be helpful if authors consciously "drilled" down into the subject from a basic high school (or even middle school) level through undergraduate to graduate level content. I can see that this is often done and cross-links are provided to many terms so I am not complaining but I think this approach should be near-universal.

M. Marich (not registered user) --68.190.217.139 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Feedback for specific issues

Home

The front page says that the current version is "1.5" It's 1.8.2 (1.8) as of 10/24/2006, is it not? Maybe a macro is in order here. Seems like a pretty major squawk to me.
(Wondering: Does anyone with the appropriate perms read this stuff...?)

I'll remove the version number since it's never likely to be up to date. Wikimedia projects are actually on 1.9 now. Angela 05:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who opposes to get rid of TOC from Home? --Aphaia 10:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta is not listed on the home page of Wikimedia Foundation. That seems odd. --Cromwellt|talk 16:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On the German version of the home page, please fix the spelling error in the sister projects box: Enzyklodädie -> Enzyklopädie. That spelling is definitely wrong. Thanks, 62.116.68.237 (en / de / commons) 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Korg + ⁺ 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

Will married people also benefit? 129.97.79.144 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't imagine ... single means here "every" so also married couples will be. --Aphaia 15:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Our projects

Spelling issue

The Our projects page has the word "snapshop", which should be "snapshot". (anon, January 3)

Fixed. Thank you for your correction. --Aphaia 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Login page

Copied from bug 4320:

Title is "log in (requires approval)". The page consists of a single section with the title "Log in". The entire page, including the heading, is in a box. These elements make the page look weird, in my opinion.

Shortening the message may remove the need to have the font so small.

Why not have a more concise message: "You do not need to log in to read the site or make a donation, but you do need to log in to edit pages. To request an account, see [some link to another page with more information]."

The title "log in (requires approval)" should make it clear that not everyone can get an account - more details can be put on another page. Brian Jason Drake 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The information suggested is available log-on page. --Aphaia 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Current staff

[2] should be updated to "5 full-time employees". -- Jeandré, 2006-07-14t12:29z

That was already fixed. Thanks! Korg + ⁺ 22:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now updated to "less than 10". More sustainable, ne? ;)--Aphaia 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Board of Trustees - typo

There's a missing bracket in the "Florence Nibart-Devouard" section, "ENSAIA" is missing its closing bracket. --Conti 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! Korg + ⁺ 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

About Wikimedia

In English, "resignment" is not a word -- "resignation" is. The departing board member offered her resignation. --Mdotley 134.205.216.111 16:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Korg + ⁺ 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hauptseite

The link to Wikibooks doesn't work and other links are also out of date.

-- MichaelFrey 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Korregiert. Vielen Dank! --Aphaia 15:47, 10 December 200

6 (UTC)

Mischallanous

applying for non-profit foundation grants

Instead of these annoying NPR-like beggings for money, Jimbo Wales should be applying for grants from non-proft foundations like the Ford. At least let us know if you've tried Jimbo; my guess is you haven't yet because it's easier to put up a paypal beg.

I'm not willing to give a cent until Jimmy relinquishes power. If he's no longer paying for it, he should no longer be running it.

A well-meaning critique of the current fund drive

As I observe it the current fund drive differs in several respects from the usual fund drive, which in my opinion could be the reason the foundation is seemingly having a hard time meeting the qouta this time around:

1. One can't directly find information about just how much money you wants to raise this time, one can only guess from the green-white bar.
2. Through the days of the fund drive it has been hard to get from the foundraising page to the 2006/Q1 budget page.
3. As a ordinary user one can't acess aditional information on one of the, in my opinion, most controversial post: Personnel.
4. The late "personal appeal" from Jimmy Wales is nice I guess, but the following commentary seem strange to me: the wonderful thing about our growth is that it gives us a real opportunity to extend our fundraising beyond just what we need to stay on the air. Please get him to be specific about what the found drive should cover other than to keep Wikipedia going, which is what most people think was the only thing it was supposed to cover.
5. In the start the Daily reports was just duplicates, allthough I see you have been more busy later.
6. Remember that the holidays often is the time of year when people have the least time for Wikipedia, don't set up a to high expectation for that fund drive (if you insist having it in december at all).

Generally: Don't set too high a goal for any fund drive, and don't claim urgency if there's really none at the time being. And lastly and most importently: *never ever* in the least respect appear closed/opaque about budget, spending post, personnel or the like when you are doing a fund drive.

I mean no offence to anyone. This is some well meaning advice, which I hope you guys will consider for the best of the Foundation. Happy 2006. --Anjoe 04:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Finances - cash balances

I think it is irresponsible for you to store nearly $200k in a Paypal account. PayPal is not a real bank; there is no government insurance (FDIC in the USA, CDIC in Canada) for those cash balances. Although we think of bankruptcy as rare events, they really are not that rare and Paypal/Ebay is not a safe storage place. No wealthy individual would store so much of their cash in an uninsured, non-bank account and neither should Wikimedia -- this is your primary capital.

I strongly recommend you move more cash into government insured bank accounts. I realize that the business account/money laundering issues are a hurdle, but it is really worth it. Your capital will be much safer.

Additionally, you should store the cash in a savings account where you will be able to earn something like $8k a year from interest alone. Other options include guaranteed deposits or government bonds, nothing longer than 2 year maturities.

-- Jem Berkes 05:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A need for more info regarding use of funds, budgets etc

I have been contributing to English and Norwegian Wikipedia for over a year, and I think its a great idea and has huge potential. I have also contributed several times. However, after the last fundraise I have not seen any news regarding what the amout raised will be used for. And the number of servers seems to be static. Neither is there any budget for 2006 despite the fact that we are soon into the second quarter.

To maintain contributors one needs to give feedback on how the money given is spent, what plans there are etc. As far as I can see, there is nothing yet on this, neither here nor on the English language version of Wikipedia - or in the Signpost. I believe that its rather important for a foundation like Wikipedia to be as transparent as possible, to be able to keep away from ads we need to have good relations with our contributors. Ulf Larsen - ulflarsen at yahoo dot com 81.235.186.70 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the fundrives there where no more updates why? [3] new servers still not yet installed looks unlikely wikipedia is still fast? Ordered 4 new databases in Q1 but nowbody knows configuration. I hope there will be soon more updates . (81.241.167.214 21:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

IBAN numbers

I would suggest that you write IBANs on the donation pages without any punctuation. My online banking applet didn't like the dashes between the numbers, and this IBAN calculator and validator doesn't like them either. Therefore, I propose the IBAN at Giften and other pages would be written simply as BE43068999999501 (no dashes, spaces or whathever).

I need a receipt for my donation!

I donated 50 euro via PayPal, but the donation was made in the name of another user. Now, I need to show him a receipt, but I've gotten none -- even tho the "Thank You" page said it would send me one. The only proof I have is when I log on my PP account, but that's not sufficient. How can I prove to the user in question that I donated the 50 euro? My username on the English Wiki is Anittas. Thanks. --213.114.138.146 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC) i think you are right this would be great

GRRR!

I find the wikimedia foundation site to be rather frustrating. I read a talk page, but couldn't post a comment. In my opinion you should allow only edits in the talk namespace, as I can see the reasoning behind protecting the site from vandals, but talk pages are annoying if only the voice of 'approved users' can be heard. MichaelBillington 10:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We don't let unregistered users edit any page because it will be too stimulous for link spammers prausibly. Instead you can input any your comment on any page on this page. --Aphaia 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

i must agree it is tough but the man or girl is triying to do there best and i like it when they do!

Error

On the board of trustees the text w:Berkman Center for Internet and Society in the Jimmy Wales section should be w:Berkman Center for Internet and Society:Berkman Center for Internet and Society --80.63.213.182 08:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Korg + ⁺ 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertising/Donation-Flogging policy

After some instances of encountering "interstitials" asking for donations & my credit-card number while editing Wikipedia, I decided to find out what the Wikimedia Foundation's official advertising/spamming policy is -- only to find that apparently they don't have one.

I can't find any page stating a clear-cut policy on the use of banners, pop-ups, interstitials, pop-unders, and so forth anywhere at meta, wikimedia foundation, or wikipedia itself. I never saw any of those at any Wikimedia site before late June, when infrequent interstitials began randomly occurring when submitting edits. Until then, I had assumed the policy was a firm "we will not bog down the sites with ad-cruft", but evidently that's not the case. Although I haven't seen any ads for third-parties (yet), only interstitials urging me to donate.

I can understand why you may feel these are necessary, and target them at editors rather than just viewers, but I think it's a bad idea for several reasons: 1. Interstitials break the normal navigation model of the Web, which includes that (between real updates) link behavior is consistent. Links don't always go to the same place twice with interstitials, making them just all-around annoying. They're almost as evil as popups, IMO. 2. Any unexpected/random behavior to a form "submit" button is especially troubling. Depending on browser make and model, the consequences can be severe data loss, as the form may be blank when you hit "back" after the unexpected result. If the submission failed or was ignored, then, it's lost. If it succeeded, the user may still think it was lost and submit a second, substantively identical edit. On forum sites this results in double postings. And if the form isn't blank after hitting "back" and the user resubmits, exactly identical duplicate postings result. With Wiki editing, the results are less predictable and may include the dreaded "edit conflict" dialog.

So, interstitials tied to a form submit button are not only evil, they're evil and rude. 3. Using a widely-reviled Web advertising technique to flog donations is likely to have the opposite to the intended effect. Nobody likes to click a link and instead of getting what they expected, getting a request for a credit-card number.

Now the suggestions for how better to flog donations. Placing a donations link near the top of every viewed page could be done without being too obnoxious, while still drawing attention to the need for donations. A donate box on the main pages of the various sites could be doable, too -- lots of people probably bookmark or even homepage one of these, and the ones who do are especially likely to donate.

Don't put the CC# form anywhere other than at the far side of a "Click here to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation" link. Anything like that popping up unexpectedly while surfing, rather than after specifically following a donate or purchase link of some sort, is instantly diagnosed as spammy by a savvy Web user and leads to a) an instant hit of the "back" button and b) a reduced likelihood that they'll come back, let alone actually donate or anything. And do accept alternative payment methods. Not everyone that has money has a credit card, you know.

I hope attention is paid here, and that a) the interstitials stop soon (I got two in a 5-minute period earlier, which is what led me to investigate your adcruft policy), b) you still find a (more effective and less offputting) way to flog donations, and c) you publish a clearly-stated policy regarding what you will and won't do in the future in the way of advertising-like behavior on the site-family, preferably promising that you will never, ever use popups, interstitials, or anything resembling those again.

Web usability professionals diss popups and related user-task-interruptive advertising techniques as being both rude and ineffective. "Users not only dislike pop-ups, they transfer their dislike to the advertisers behind the ad and to the website that exposed them to it."[4] I don't think this is what the Wikimedia Foundation wants happening to the main contributors of content, do you? If they begin to dislike the Foundation they will take their ball and go elsewhere, and without content, Wikimedia itself is a goner. So taken to an extreme, rather than save the encyclopedia and related projects, a too-aggressive funding drive using "bad" (interruptive) advertising techniques may actually kill it.

Think about this seriously, whoever in authority reads this, as your decisions on this issue may determine the fate of the whole project. Go one way, and ram donation requests down peoples' throats too much, and you'll end up with no money and no new content, and it's game over. Go the other way, and find a less obtrusive approach, and you may well improve the funding situation drastically without making anyone mad. To get donors, you need the donor in a frame of mind open and receptive to your plea; an annoying popup or interstitial closes the door to that in a right hurry, but if you get them after finishing some research while browsing aimlessly or at the main page they may be receptive. Already you have a donations link close to the random page link, which is good. A donations link at the top of the edit form page might reach your core contributors, editors, without the side effect of irritating them. A funding thermometer in these sorts of places might be even more effective during funding drives, maybe in the top left corner by the site logo on each page served.

On a side note, the interstitial, when I glanced at it, did not appear to be written in English, though I was using the English Wikipedia site on all the occasions so far when I've seen it triggered. (I never bothered take a close look; merely hit "back" each time as soon as it was apparent that I was seeing an ad, to judge by the various credit card company logos in proximity to a text field asking for a cc#).--69.196.212.30 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On a second side note, entering this and hitting "Save Page" produced its own unexpected-result problem -- a captcha that should have been requested right away on the first form if it was going to be at all. This preserved the main form and its contents, though. Except the edit summary, which was changed from what I'd entered.--69.196.212.30 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! The donation messages that you are seeing only appear when we are experiencing technical difficulties with our servers, which are usually resolved in a matter of minutes. Thanks, Naconkantari 17:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Idea

I had an idea that maybe Wikipedia should offer a toolbar similar to google's or yahoo's with the point being a quicker way to search Wikipedia.

*thinks deeply* I think you can find an useful toolbar here (Internet Explorer) and here (Firefox). :) Color probe 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please... WYSIWYG

"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.". I can not see how you can achieve this dream when so many people look at the edit page and say "Whoo, I'm not going to touch that, I may break it". A few days ago I was looking up an article on wikipedia with my father, we looked over an article which he happened to know something about, he was very impressed with all the detail, but spotted an an area in the article that was confusion and wanted to add some clarification from his knowledge. With his basic computer knowledge he managed to click on the "edit" button and then, 10 seconds later he had closed the window. Why I asked him? "Because these pages are to be changed by engineers" he said. This is a retired engineer himself, the ex-CEO of a large international company and he would not make the changes he wanted to because it looked too complicated. I offered to make the change for him, but it was too late. Please, please, lets not try and change the people, lets change the tools to accommodate the people and let's implement a WYSIWYG editor into mediawiki.

Just a quick note

In the "Latest news" section on the front page, it reads "Angela Beesley resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board Last week, on the 1th of July". I don't have an account to change that to "1st of July", so just letting you all know. Wikipedia:ste4k 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Done --M/ 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to Italian Wikinews

In these pages (1, 2 and 3) links to Italian Wikinews project cannot be found! --Wappi76 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Done --M/ 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo on front page

s/Beesley announced here resignation/Beesley announced her resignation/;

--24.193.195.6 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done Korg + ⁺ 22:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The translated version of the Privacy policy in Japanese

I've just noticed that there are very critical discrepancies between the English original and the Japanese translated version of the the Wikimedia privacy policy at the Foundation website. I don’t know if the translated version is legally binding or not (there is no disclaimer). However, there is a discussion of the (almost) legal interpretation on the Privacy policy at the Japanese version of Wikipedia based on the outdated, translated version. I am very concerned about this as I don’t think we should add any unnecessary legal liability if we can avoid it. I will also ask at Talk:Privacy policy/Ja. Thank you. --Californiacondor 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your report. For your information a given translated version warrants nothing. Please consult the original if your case is serious indeed. --Aphaia 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Board of trustees page

I wonder if I can get some feedback at Talk:Board_of_Trustees#Look_of_the_page. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikispecies domain down

The domain wikispecies.org currently doesn't work. You should change the link on the Wikimedia homepage to http://species.wikimedia.org .

Done, thank you for pointing that out. Korg + ⁺ 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Login prompt link

The link to the account requests page at wikimedia:MediaWiki:Loginprompt needs updating. It currenly links to Wikimedia site feedback/request for an account but it should link to Request for an account on the Foundation wiki. Philbert^2.71828 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done on this page and three others (thank you Korg for pointing me to this issue) jd ❂ 15:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No text in two main sections

The "Community Portal" and "help" sections have no contnent. These sections are linked to from the left-side navigation, so they are very visible. I think you should either create these pages or remove the very visible links. --24.20.69.240 09:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. You may have come in a bad time. Usually those links aren't available due to optimization, however it occurs from technical reasons.

eGold

Wikimedia should accept egold as a payment mechanism. After all they accept paypal and moneybookers.

Wikiversity

There's no links to Wikiversity either in the news or the list of projects. the wub 11:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cf. Now working. See Talk:www.wikiquote.org portal#Add Wikiversity link --Aphaia 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo blank on wikimedia.org

The wikisource logo on the [[5]] portal is not showing. It is only an empty box. I hope this is the right place for this comment- there did not seem to be a talk page for wikimedia.org. Thank you----24.20.69.240 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Naconkantari 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have lost my account

I have lost my account. I had created an account here but now I have lost it and I have to log in again but they don`t realize me. I can`t even edit without logging in. Please can you tell me who did this. Thanks! User:Kyereh Mireku

Sorry, there is no user account under the name of User:Kyereh Mireku. You may have meant another website? In general, on MediaWiki, if you activated your wikimail feature, you can get a new password. Or you may want to talk to developers on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. Good luck. --Aphaia 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Partial page locks?

I was wondering if it would be possible to implement an editing-lock on part of a Wiki page. Then various articles that are considered "complete" can be fixed so they cannot be defaced, only appendings could be done to those pages. Later, whatever "reviewing group" that would be in charge of partly locking a page, this group would determine if an append warranted merging into the locked section. Overall, this notion could also be helpful in controversial cases where each side strives to erase what the other side wrote. No more!

Please update the Chinese version of Board of Trustees on wikimediafoundation.org

I do not have the privilege required. With Jimmy Wales no longer as chairman, the current page is outdated and does not correctly describe the latest, reorganized Board of Trustees. Would someone with editing right please kindly correct it? 07:08, 1st November 2006 (UTC)

As organization I think the current version is not wrong (hopefully), though it could be still improved. Your work on Translation requests/WMF/Board of Trustees/Zh: will be welcome (for keeping consistency and stability of the content, we are seldom working there but here on meta, for your information). It means you may submit the right version without account. --Aphaia 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please update Gyűjtőkampány page

This is the Hungarian page for Fundraising, please put in a Hungarian flag, and links to donations in HUF. The Hungarian should be the first atop the flags, and the caption right to it should say "Adomány forintban:" . The appropriate page for donations in Huf ar here http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/HUF , with "egyszeri" linking to the one time donation section, "havonta" for the monthly and "évente" for the yearly donation sections. Thanks Dami(User:Bdamokos) at the huwiki--85.238.73.246 18:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Fundcom folks have been working for those newly added currancy. Soon you will see the page updated properly. Thank you for your patient. --Aphaia 04:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article media photos

The "pazyrik" photo shown here [6] is listed as being "Image credit: Wikimedia Foundation". Is that right? Why is the foundation getting credit for a public domain image? Stevage 14:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The logos are one thing, but the Foundation's website is being quite strange in doing this. Why doesn't it provide a click-through to the Commons page like all other wikis do?

• Image:Faravahar.png is licensed under the GFDL *only*. What the press release suggests (the credit line) is actually not compliant with the GFDL. And actually, this is not well sourced. It says "from English Wikipedia" but I can't find it there (it was possibly deleted?) so essentially we have no source.
• Ditto Image:20060806 ENWIKI 1000 FEATURED ARTICLES.png. In fact this has the strange feature of the line "own work" with absolutely no indication as to who wrote that!!! Of course on the Commons page we can see it was Marbot, but I don't think your average press person is going to be able to figure that out.
• Image:Persian local woman.jpg has rather questionable origins, but I guess someone checked it all out before putting it on a press release...?
• Image:PazyrikHorseman.JPG this actually has no source and is a bit suss as well. I can't tell from the picture whether or not this is like a framed photograph, or a cave wall...? If it's the latter, PD-Art cannot apply. Just because the item itself dates to 300BC doesn't mean the photograph does, of course! If it's a 3D object (cave wall) then the photographer actually retains copyright and this is not necessarily free. pfctdayelise 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and sorry for late reply. As for the "sharedupload" message, I think it fixed. Please confirm it. --Aphaia 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is better, thankyou. pfctdayelise 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia promotiemateriaal

Wikipedia promotiemateriaal bij Cafe Press: US$5 van elke aankoop gaat naar de Wikimedia Foundation.

Hoe kan er van aankopen van minder dan $5 (stickers etc.) $5 naar wikipedia gaan?

Proposal for a new wiki

I think it would be a good idea to have a "best practices" wiki. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_practices) I'm not sure how you would organize something like that, tho. Example: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html Farcast 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a page for project proposal.See Proposed for proposed projects. Aphaia 11:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation misunderstanding

When you enter the index page where you select the lanaguage that you want I noticed that the subtitle for WIkipedia in spanish says "La enciclopedia libre". Free does translate to "libre" but it means free as in not slaved. When you are talking about free as in not having to pay for something, the translation in spanish is "gratis". I think that should be the word put in that subtitle instead of "libre". October 10,2006

Now I like libre more than gratis after I read your explanation.--Californiacondor 02:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia project is free as speech, not as beer. So libre is right. Though it is also gratis, too. --Aphaia 15:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikisourse = Викитека

On the Russian front page of Wikimedia Fondation in the Front Article by Danny Wool the word Wikisourse was mistakenly translated as Викицитатник (the mistake was repeated a few times). It has to be translated as Викитека. (86.5.84.15 08:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your note. It seems to have been fixed by ACrush. --Aphaia 10:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Laws are Invalid and Outdated

While studying the copyright laws in the U.S. I found that nowhere has the government actually proved that there is an infinite number of copyrightable expressions. The law has two purposes, one to protect the creation from infringement and the other is to encourage the creation of new art. If some catagories of art and music cannot create anything new because the number of free expressions have been all used up then the law is invalid. Without proving the exact probable number of expressions then the law is unconstitutional. Also the number of new copyrighted expression is growing dramatically. It's possible to use computers to mass produce and copyright millions of expressions per day. This only means that copyright law is a fossil. The future of humankind won't include the copyright laws that exist today!!

blocking randomly on Wikipedia?

Hi, My email is below. I am operating from a school based computer to look up things on Wikipedia. Unfortunatly though I am a teacher, a research assistant at our local University and very interested in the idea of this project, the project itself has blocked me from any access from school? Please look into this. I'd appreciate an answer to the email below.

wjhartle@ucalgary.ca

thanks, Bill Hartley

Hello, this is not Wikipedia. You would possible like to visit to en:Wikipedia:Contact us for instance, (if you are blocked from the English version, but I am not sure; we have 200+ language versions) and find more appropriate people who can deal with your problem. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

María Margarita Vargas y Santaella

Could you create a stub for her, with bio and all.

Sorry, this isn't Wikipedia, but you can visit Wikipedia:Requested articles. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Polhemskolan

Här träffar ni på de flesta luffarna. en vanlig morgon går barnen till skolan för att få nya upplevelser. varför jag skrev nya innom det luffiga tecknet är för att de gör samma sak varje gång. PRÄÄÄÄÄ.. okej mannen nnu räcker det med min perfekta svenneska, nu är det på ALLVAR. shoo bre är ett vanligt ord i skolan hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe...kaki å DÄNNEMAN sitter i ettan å kollar på 90orna. MÅNS THE CENTANGUY tar sex glas apelsinjucie i matsalen för att kolla på tjejerna. krafiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig spänner sig med sin nya rock och halsduk från NOOVAA. FORSÄTTNING FÖLJER..JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Sumer

Someone has hacked your "Sumer" article. The information still exists (I noticed it when I clicked on "edit." But it doesn't display that information. I don't know if this is the fastest or best way to contact you.

I find the use of the term "CE/BCE" very confusing. According to you. - "The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as the Current Era or as the Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year /wiki/1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era or Before the Christian Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "In the year of (Our) Lord[1]") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, . . ."

Why do you not use the Occam's razor approach. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

Or is this another situation attempting to "dumb down" our language?

Upon further investigation I find that Wikipedia is almost universally consistent in applying “ Occam's razor approach” to your “This Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.”

It has been suggested that I edit the article. I am neither learned, nor a “checker” that wants to meddle with a written work of someone else.

As a general rule the articles I need are well written, clear, well footnoted, and very useful. About “NPOV”, not all the time. Some articles, 10% I would say, are a little slanted to the left by the buzzwords and phases used.

Yours sincerely, Rob Remillard R.S.V.P.

Why am I BLOCKED!!!

I am a first time "attempted" user of wikipedia, but upon trying to open an account, I find that I am BLOCKED and can not access any of the services! This is very strange and uninviting, considering the fact the I have never used wikipedia. It appears that you (wikipedia) inadvertantly block all users of particular ISPs, Earthlink.net in my case and THIS IS WRONG! Eventually, this will be the undoing of wikipedia, because once you top out on the available people not belonging to one of your ousted ISPs, you will have created alot of enemies and people who remember how they were poorly treated when trying to join.

It is very easy to access the page and make a donation, but almost impossible to figure the "red tape" set in play to slow down and interfere with members joining from some of the largest ISPs out here: AOL, Earthlink, etc.

I want to join, but I will be damned if I will beg or go through a ton of garbage to do so, when have done absolutely NOTHING to be treated differently from anyone else that would be a member.

I am saddened to see you so troubled, however this page is concerned only with the Wikimedia Foundation official website, sorry. There is nothing we can do right now even on an individual basis, since I have no idea from which Wikipedia among 200 versions you are in trouble. You may be happier to contact your ISP and the contact address which you may get in a screen you see with block warning. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanium

In your page for Titanium, you have printed that Titanium is a "gay" element. I hope that you meant to print "gray"???. How can an element be gay?????

Interesting question. In medieval Western Europe people believed tin is a gay element in relevance to Jove, the God of joy. OTOH led is a gloomy element in their opinion. However you may mean a bit different thing ... I suppose you may more than happy to put this question into the talk page where you find this phrase. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ability to Edit Page Content

Lately I have been referring to Wikipedia for questions I have. Then today I discovered that the wikipedia entries could be edited when I saw the phrase "Cock in yo face" at the bottom of the page. I got rid of it but now I am suspicious as to whether or not I can trust the accuracy of the entries.

Thank you for your help and feedback, people like you sustain and improve Wikipedia accuracy indeed ;) If you would like further discussion, please jump into the general discussion page of the Wikipedia you met the incident you reported kindly. For instance, Village Pump on English Wikipedia. There are more than 200 language versions of Wikipedia, so regretfully I cannot give you the exact URL, but you may find it quickly. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How to start an ArbCom

If a language of Wikipedia does not have an ArbCom, what must be done for them to have one? The ArbCom policies I found on en.wikipedia and Meta wikimedia said NOTHING on STARTING an ArbCom. Thanks.

Hello anon editor, it is not the Foundation issue, but the community issue. Even not the global Wikimedia community, but each local ones. The first arbcom members of English Wikipedia were appointed by Jimbo Wales, so there might be no information how to start ...... I recommend you to go to Metapub and ask people to let you know what you would like to know about it. French and Dutch Wikipedians may have experiences. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

submit item

Hello,

A am assuming anyone can submit there bio to Wikimedia, I'm a artist and would want to be part of Wikimedia, How do you submit information.

Pat Silva,

mypals@verizon.net

Sorry, information you got may be wrong We accept only bios of notable people to our project, Wikipedia. It means, if you think someone other notable, you are invited to submit their bios, on the other hand, someone other thinks you notable, he or she are invited to submit your bio. But no one is invited to submit their own bios due to neutrality. Thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an idea.....

We have a section named something along the lines of Wikiversity Papers, and it has access only to top university students, who have been chosen from their lecturer as having the best paper/ exam answer.

The lecturer can enter their university code into the system, then there may be a place for them to then enter in an empty box the identification code of themselves then of the successful student/s. Once this happens those students can then enter their I.D. number into the system and be successfully redirected to the place where they can type it up. The reason to do it a way like this, would be to ensure that only the best information available is in this place (and not corrupted). This would help the students who want to know what the best paper/ essay was, as well as a spotlight on those who contributed . If reading this, you like the idea, please say so and I will let my lecturers know.- L. Cornehls

Wikiversity already has a category called v:Category:Papers. There is one being prepaired right now.--Rayd 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)