Difference between revisions of "Wikibooks:Reading room/General"

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
(The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5: reply)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
}}
 
}}
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''This is an [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages|update]] from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Wikimedia Affiliations Committee]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages/De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong - February 2017|Translations are available]].''
  +
  +
Recognition as a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate|Wikimedia movement affiliate]] — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.
  +
  +
The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is [[m:Wikimedia Hong Kong|Wikimedia Hong Kong]], a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.
  +
  +
If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate de-recognition FAQ|basic FAQ]]. We also invite you to visit the main [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate|Wikimedia movement affiliates page]] for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Affiliations Committee]], 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages/De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong - February 2017|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery/en&oldid=16316437 -->
  +
  +
== Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review|Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
  +
The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.
  +
  +
This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.
  +
  +
The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.
  +
  +
Regular updates are being sent to the [[mail:Wikimedia-l|Wikimedia-l mailing list]], and posted [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates|on Meta-Wiki]]. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Signup|Sign up]] to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
  +
  +
Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:
  +
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/15 December 2016 - Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (15 December 2016)
  +
** Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/23 December 2016 - Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (23 December 2016)
  +
** Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/8 January 2017 - Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (8 January 2017)
  +
** Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/11 January 2017 - Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (11 January 2017)
  +
** Introduction of williamsworks
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/2 February 2017 - Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (2 February 2017)
  +
** The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/10 February 2017 - Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (10 February 2017)
  +
** Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks
  +
  +
More information about the movement strategy is available on the [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal]].
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]], 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16297862 -->
  +
  +
== Questions before starting a book to review citizenship laws of the world ==
  +
  +
Inspired by [http://web.archive.org/web/20050204173857/http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/forprefC.htm] originally but no longer at the US Defense Security Service and [http://web.archive.org/web/20030406210657/http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf] featuring a PDF authored by Office of Personnel Management of the US government, perhaps the texts qualify for [[s:Template:PD-USGov]]? If so, I would like to copy the texts with known updates to start a book titled "Citizenship", with subpages per country, then further subpages to teach readers how to acquire or lose the citizenship of a country and how to apply for a passport of a country, when information is available. Proposed examples include "Citizenship/United States", "Citizenship/United States/Naturalization", "Citizenship/United States/Loss", "Citizenship/United States/Passport", etc. However, the texts under "ANY QUESTIONS" in each country will not be copied here while not very good for readers outside the USA. Any comments before I start, please?--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 03:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  +
:I have uploaded [[:File:US OPM Citizenship Laws of the World 2001.pdf]] to Wikimedia Commons and I would like to use its text to be updated here.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  +
::With no comment, I am starting [[Citizenship and Nationality]].--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 02:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Contribs negative numbers ==
  +
  +
I noticed on my contribs page, there are numbers, some with a red negative number such as, (-10). What does this mean? [[User:Littlekatie1|Littlekatie1]] ([[User talk:Littlekatie1|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Littlekatie1|contribs]]) 01:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
: {{ping|Littlekatie1}} Those numbers are the change in page size caused by the edit. The red ones are where the edit made the page smaller. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 04:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process|This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
  +
As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.
  +
  +
Regular updates are being sent to the [[mail:Wikimedia-l|Wikimedia-l mailing list]], and posted [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates|on Meta-Wiki]]. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Signup|Sign up]] to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
  +
  +
Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/16 February 2017 - Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (16 February 2017)
  +
** Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/24 February 2017 - Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (24 February 2017)
  +
** Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/2 March 2017 - Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (2 March 2017)
  +
** Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions
  +
  +
More information about the movement strategy is available on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal]].
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]], 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16350625 -->
  +
  +
== Requesting permission to host agglomerated editions of Indian Copyright Act editions which are not supported by wikisource ==
  +
  +
Hi,
  +
  +
Wikisource is a project which allows only pre-published works/Acts. Now Indian Copyright Act 1957 has 6 amendments and those are hosted on english wikisource.
  +
  +
Undersigned would like to build agglomerated (i.e. constructed editions) from these pre published acts which are already hosted on wikisource. Fo example
  +
  +
I want to get build/constructed following on wikibooks
  +
  +
# Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st amendment = Second edition after amendments (Since Indian Copyright act 1957 initself amounts to be first edition.)
  +
# Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd amendment = Third edition after amendments
  +
# Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd amendment = Fourth edition after amendment
  +
# Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd+ 4th amendment = Fifth edition
  +
# Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd+ 4th+ 5th amendment = sixth edition
  +
# Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd+ 4th+ 5th + 6th amendment = seventh edition
  +
  +
The seventh edition (and the previous also) proposed is/are supposed to look some thing like present condition of [[:s:en:Indian_Copyright_Law]] page
  +
  +
These editions are basically (mounting texts of subseuent published texts of the act on previous added texts of the act) i.e. detailed annotations by adding every later publication of the amendment to earlier edition of the act annoted in detail.
  +
  +
What exacly is being planned
  +
  +
  +
:1. [[Indian Copyright Act 1957]] (1st edition) This will remain on en wikisource
  +
:2. [[Indian Copyright (1st Amendment) Act 1983]] This will remain on en wikisource
  +
:2.1 [[Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1983 edition)]] (i.e. 2nd edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.2 to no.1 )
  +
:3. [[Indian Copyright (2nd Amendment) Act 1984]] This will remain on en wikisource
  +
:3.1 [[Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1984 edition)]] (i.e. 3rd edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.3 to no.2.1 )
  +
:4. [[Indian Copyright Act (3rd Amendment) 1992|Indian Copyright (3rd Amendment) Act 1992]] This will remain on en wikisource
  +
  +
:4.1 [[Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1992 edition)]] (i.e. 4th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.4 to no.3.1 )
  +
:5. Indian Copyright (4th Amendment) Act 1994 - This will remain on en wikisource
  +
:5.1 [[Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1994 edition)]] (i.e. 5th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.5 to no.4.1 )
  +
:6. [[Indian Copyright Act (5th Amendment) 1999|Indian Copyright (5th Amendment) Act 1999]] This will remain on en wikisource
  +
:6.1 [[Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1999 edition)]] (i.e. 6th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.6 to no.5.1 )
  +
:7. Indian Copyright (6th Amendment) Act 2012 This will remain on en wikisource
  +
:7.1 [[Indian Copyright Act 1957 (2012 edition)]] (i.e. 7th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.7 to no.6.1 )
  +
  +
  +
So namely 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 are the editions proposed to be hosted on en wikibooks. Whether it has educational value ? Ceratainly it will be having value to students of copyright law besides it will be valuable to Public at large. Along with wikisource hosted data it will work as a reference source too to some extatnt wherever allowd on Help pages for indic wiki community and in articles if allowed by wp.
  +
  +
Plese let me know at your earliest whether wikibooks will be willing to allow and host proposed edition pages.
  +
  +
Thanks and regards to all
  +
  +
[[User:Mahitgar|Mahitgar]] ([[User talk:Mahitgar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mahitgar|contribs]]) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Let me see if I understand the issue is there are some acts that have not been published and that is why they can't be included on wikisource ?
  +
:It makes no sense to me, if a law isn't published in some form it can't be enacted. Why can't wikisource host it ?
  +
:In any case as a derived project you should add a partial duplicate to wikisource static material (as I can't see it being segmented across the projects and being useful).
  +
:You need only add a educational spin or start it as an annotation work (my understanding is that the original material already has annotations), adding historical references even interlinks to the reasons behind creation and changes to the laws. Note in any case that contrary to wikisource our material is open to changes and it requires curation from someone with enough understanding to keep it correct and useful and stable in its intent. --[[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 11:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
In India, when usually any amendment to any act is passed, only the amended clauses are mentioned,(Original act and its amendment acts are avaialable under fairdeal since those were parliamentary documents. The parliamentary amendment act documentation does not include how an act would look/read along with amended clauses; Now that work is done by private sector ie. expert advocates or legal firms and these works are copyrighted.
  +
  +
Now problem before online (even ofline) Indic community is all these editions either are not available and where those are available are usually copyrighted; since this edition creation is usually done by non-govt agencies or indivisuals is usually copyrighted and fair dealing provisions can not be used easily, And many Indic wikipedians suffer much more and end up using some wrong editions from online. Getting copyright free versions of these editions is not an easy job. My personal experience is Indian legal fraternity still doesnot look wiki projects favourably enough so asking them to make it copyright free is a distant dream.
  +
  +
Only option as of now is we construct the same on our own. Segmenting across the projects was not prefered option but english wikisource community says ([[:s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Problematic_work_Indian_Copyright_Law|wikisource discussion ref]]) that they would host only single pre-published documents whenever those will come in public domain and are reluctant to allow hosting the above requested wikimedian constructed editions.
  +
  +
Curation from someone with enough understanding to keep it correct and useful and stable in its intent would not be too defficult since we have already conducted an [[:s:Wikisource:IPNLC|iternship project on en-wikisource with help of New law college, Pune]] students and we (Indic wikimedian community) and CIS is looking forward to take internship project to next level of the work described as above to be performed, what we need is wiki community go ahead signal.
  +
  +
Thanks for looking into this issue. Regards
  +
  +
[[User:Mahitgar|Mahitgar]] ([[User talk:Mahitgar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mahitgar|contribs]]) 13:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Ok I now understand the problem, it still seems a bit silly since public money may have paid for that work (or not?). How are firms selected to provide such work, is it by some sort of bid process ? If not it seems a system prone to corruption and exploitation of public resources.
  +
:Can you please post the license of the content you intend to put on wikibooks (the one that wikisource refused), so we can see if the license is compatible...
  +
:Yup, you can duplicate projects (request the imports from wikisource) and expand on them after... --[[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 16:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
Yup it is silly - Human beings do have potential to be rational but they are always not :), without knowing how an act is going to look after amendments, govt might not be bringing amedment acts. So what is wrong in publishing a complete law after amendment act from govt side itself but they dont do. There is no bidding process any one can workout and publish the amended edition of law but usually work is done by advocates and such work remains copyrighted.
  +
  +
Wikisource objection is of technical nature not related to licencing of the work we propose to do. We are basically working on acts of Indian legislatures so it is covered by fairdealing provisions; there are only certain restrictions relating to translations. If any translation is made need to be written that translation is not approved by govt, and this translation fairdealing is available to Indian languages only ofcourse english covered since acts mostly are made in english. You can see licencing on wikimedia commons [[:File:Indian_Copyright_Act_1957.djvu]] and for the document refused by wikisource licencing below the document [[:s:Indian Copyright Law]].
  +
  +
Please do suggest
  +
  +
[[User:Mahitgar|Mahitgar]] ([[User talk:Mahitgar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mahitgar|contribs]]) 17:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Just to satisfy my curiosity and further my understanding. In India law firms (as independent members of the public) have the special ability to propose law changes to the legislature ? They do it freely and keep ownership over the legal reasoning for the proposed changes. I guess that they offer some limited copies of that "privately owned" reasoning to the legislative body for the subsequent debate but everyone else has to pay to be able to read it. Will the record of the debate of such changes not be public domain and will it not duplicate that copyrighted content? Does the firms' copyright only prevent some forms of distribution ? Is a firm's copyright expressed (written and enforced) or only assumed ? (is it stated and has anyone been persecuted by violating it?)
  +
:Most legislative processes have the ability of having the public present at least motions for debate (not necessarily to enact laws, but a step to it) open to everyone (with numbers as a basis to reach the goal), having law firms have a special leg up in the process seems prone to exacerbate the influence of special interest groups in state's legislature.
  +
:I see no problem in having you start your project, select a proper name like "Agglomerated and annotated editions of Indian Copyright Acts" create the raw book structure request the imports (or you can do it yourself copy paste style as edit history will not be that important, but please create some attribution to the wikisource repository (you should also post there in its discussion area your project creation if noting else to keep a link and advertise it). --[[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 07:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
For formal process of suggesting formation and changes to law There is some thing called "Law commission" -suggessions of law commission are not binding on govt. The indian law firms may not necesssarily adopting an official channle in practical terms. Legal fraternity usually joins politics have connection with politicians, several top lawyers find thee way in legislatures representing various political parties. Parliamentary debate documentation is supposed to be copyright free still, the copies of consolidated versions may be with govt department or parliamentary commitees where in commons public does not have easy access to documentation.
  +
  +
Thanks The way wikisource syntax works we will preferably import some pages and templates (including the licence) and then customise for this project.
  +
  +
[[User:Mahitgar|Mahitgar]] ([[User talk:Mahitgar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mahitgar|contribs]]) 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
: {{ping|Mahitgar}} I feel I could easily have missed some important points in the above. Here's my understanding of what's going on:
  +
:* The legislation and its updates are available as separate pieces but not as a coherent whole with all the pieces assembled, and since the assembled document is a construct it is technically out of scope for Wikisource.
  +
:* The one concern I see with hosting this at Wikibooks is that, in order to be within ''our'' scope, there needs to be more for Wikibooks contributors to do than just echoing Indian legislation as it comes out. There's a full-page policy on annotated texts at [[WB:AT]], and a shorter discussion of it at {{nowrap|[[WB:WIW#Wikibooks includes annotated texts]]}} with the remark
  +
::: As a point of overlap between the two projects, Wikisource also allows the inclusion of annotated texts. If you would like to write a sparsely annotated text or a sparsely critical edition of a text, consider hosting your work more appropriately on Wikisource instead.
  +
: So, as I see it, you need to design the wikibook to be more than just an assembled form of the Indian legislation, and then there's no problem at all with doing the assembly here. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 00:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Upcoming changes ==
  +
  +
There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:
  +
  +
* There's a change to how [[:mw:Special:MyLanguage/Editing/Projects/Columns for references|columns in reference lists]] are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
  +
** '''What you need to do:''' Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then [[:mw:Special:MyLanguage/Editing/Projects/Columns for references#Requesting this feature|file a Phabricator task]] or [[mw:Talk:Editing/Projects/Columns for references|just tell me]], and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  +
* The label on the "<bdi>{{int:savechanges}}</bdi>" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "<bdi>{{int:Publishpage}}</bdi>". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
  +
** If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please [[:m:Talk:Editing/Publish|tell me as soon as possible]].
  +
** When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so <em>please</em> ask me first if you have any questions.
  +
* As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "<bdi>{{int:savechanges}}</bdi>" (or now "<bdi>{{int:Publishpage}}</bdi>"), "<bdi>{{int:showpreview}}</bdi>" and "<bdi>{{int:showdiff}}</bdi>" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. ([[phab:T111088]]) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  +
* Last April, nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice because of [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/Server switch 2016|some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers]]. The same kind of planned maintenance is [[:m:Tech/Server switch 2017|happening again]]. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.
  +
  +
That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{tl|ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Whatamidoing (WMF)|contribs]]) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15) ==
  +
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks">
  +
: ''This message, "[[mailarchive:wikimediaannounce-l/2017-March/001383.html|We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)]]", was sent through multiple channels by [[m:User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum]] on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by [[m:User:Nicole_Ebber_(WMDE)|Nicole Ebber]] to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes''
  +
  +
Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:
  +
  +
Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.
  +
  +
There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:
   
For some time I have had the idea of using the internet to produce academic papers in the public domain. Wikibooks might be the place to do this. The idea is that an author submits a new draft paper. People can jump in to make additions and possibly add their names as co-authors. People can jump in to edit and add their names as editors. When the paper has sufficient content it can be frozen for refereeing. Suitably qualified referees can be invited (or maybe just drop in) to determine if the paper is suitable for publication. If it is suitable it can be sent to Wikisource and linked (if appropriate) to articles in Wikipedia. Wikibooks academic papers would need a special format.
+
[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Track_A|Track A (organized groups)]]: Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).
   
The advantages of this system is that the papers would be created and remain in the public domain. Publication might also be faster than through the established printed journals. Academics like myself want the widest possible distribution of their work but this gets blocked because the publishers of academic journals normally take the copyright of the papers away from the authors.
+
Track B (individual contributors): [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_1|On Meta]] or your [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate|local language or project wiki]].
   
I am new to Wikibooks and Wiki space in general, so I apologize if I'm way off track with this. It is just an idea, hopefully it can gain substance if other people are interested. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+
This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?
   
Thanks for all the comments. It seems that wikibooks is not the place for this idea. However, I will continue the thread for a moment longer, if only for the benefit of others who are lost in wikispace. At wikia I found a page that has been set up to do almost exactly what I proposed. It seems to have been in existence for some six years and, although all the infrastructure is there, there is virtually no content. It seems that an "academic publishing" page is just too general to attract participants. It needs to be more focused on a specific area of study. Also, I think it needs a strong group to start it off. I do not think it can be started by just one person with the expectation that others will just drop in (it will end up as dead space). I might pursue the idea further at wikiversity if I can put a group together.[[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
+
We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.
   
:What you are describing sounds more like [http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia]. We have a [[WB:OR|policy]] against original research here on Wikibooks. [[User:Recent Runes|Recent Runes]] ([[User talk:Recent Runes|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017|Find out more about the movement strategy process]]
::Please, I beg of you, let's not advertise for Wikia, as that is a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation board. As for the "[[WB:OR|policy]] against original research" here, I personally think that is something that ought to be reconsidered by the community. Having now carefully read that policy, I am wondering if [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|this recent output]] is actually in violation of Wikibooks policy? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
+
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Toolkit/Discussion_Coordinator_Role|Learn more about volunteering to be a Discussion Coordinator]]
:::Oh, don't worry about "advertising" on this level. It is traditional to suggest to people, before nuking their silly contributions, to point out other places that will take them, "this is better for Wikia" is quite a bit nicer than "get that crap out of here!" We could also point out, for example, [http://mywikibiz.com MyWikiBiz]. Just don't ''you'' point it out, okay! More to the point, though, is that Wikiversity is a great place for original research, it is explicitly allowed, just don't try to present it as a scientific consensus, for example, if it isn't. But you can put up a page on your Favorite Crackpot Theory, note that it's not accepted, and then pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't illegal or fattening. At least that's the theory, the execution of the theory gets a bit ragged sometimes, but we are working on that.
 
   
:::As to your brilliant paper, while one might quibble with some words at the end, one might also allow an author some flexibility, especially if the conclusions reached are obvious, and Wikibooks policy on Original Research seems far more flexible than that of Wikipedia. In the end -- in both places! -- the real standard is consensus, there is no way around that unless the Foundation wants to step in, i.e., no way, so my advice: remember to be nice! Now, if I could just take my own advice..... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
+
Sincerely,
:[[v:|Wikiversity]] is a good place for this, which is still within the Wikimedia projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yes. My opinion is that it is possible that Wikiversity could establish a peer review process, and that it could become, effectively, a publisher of peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few obstacles to overcome, though. I don't expect to see this soon. However, papers can be written there, just as students and teachers may present, in classes, original research. An exciting idea is the collaborative writing of papers that might be submitted for publication elsewhere, under normal peer review. I've even set up a lab resource at [[Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Lab|Cold fusion/Lab]], something that would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia or here. I work extensively on Wikiversity because of the great academic freedom that is the ideal there. It's largely realized, and there have only been problems arising from WMF critics using Wikiversity to criticize WMF projects, and then individuals criticized, often politically powerful within the WMF community, and their friends, also came to oppose, sometimes also in disruptive ways. The use (for "Wiki studies") is theoretically possible, but will require the establishment of ethical standards, and I wanted Thekohser to be unblocked there precisely so that he could support the development of those standards, from the critic side, and I assume that there will be others who will participate from the "defense." If, absent such standards, he abuses the relative freedom of Wikiversity to prematurely criticize, I will act to prevent it. But I don't expect it to be a problem. He's been very cooperative. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
+
Nicole Ebber (Track A Lead), Jaime Anstee (Track B Lead), & the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/People|engagement support teams]]</div></div> 05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
:: That sounds like an excellent idea. However, as Darklama and Recent Runes pointed out, other wiki exist that would be an even better place for it than Wikibooks.
+
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16453957 -->
:: If you are thinking about publishing some particular paper, perhaps it would be even better to post an outline on a wiki dedicated to whatever particular field you are interested in. A few such narrowly-focused wiki are:
 
::* [http://www.scienceofspectroscopy.info/ Science of Spectroscopy wiki]
 
::* [http://openwetware.org/ OpenWetWare wiki: biology]
 
::* [http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Design Renewable Energy Design wikia]
 
::* [http://www.sklogwiki.org/ SklogWiki dedicated to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics]
 
::* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/ BioMineWiki: biology and hydrometallurgy]
 
::* [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem Project wiki]
 
::* [http://prettyscience.wikia.com/ Pretty Science Wikia]
 
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
As someone who recently repurposed a small portion of his undergraduate honors thesis [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|here on Wikibooks]] (perhaps unwittingly in violation of policy!), I would like to say something. I can attest that there were at least 100 honors papers coming out of Emory University every year in the late 1980's, and one would estimate with near certainty that easily half of them never reached a "digital age" reformatting. It seems an utter waste of talent and labor to '''''not''''' reach out to people with honors research "collecting dust", and ask them (plead with them!) to consider scanning the work for OCR, then releasing it under a free license to share with the rest of the world. Multiply my experience at Emory by at least 200 (or 400, or 800!), to cover the many outstanding universities worldwide that have featured honors papers, etc. We're talking about a great deal of content and information that really should be gathered up and made digital. If not on Wikibooks, why? And where? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
+
:'''A local page for this at [[Wikibooks:Wikimedia Strategy 2017]] has been created, if you'd prefer to participate here instead of on Metawiki'''. Looking forward to your input! :) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Quiddity (WMF)|contribs]]) 00:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
:Not peer-reviewed, but this material would presumably be fine for Wikiversity, no question, and some of it might be okay here as well. It's likely to be of better quality than the average. Great idea, Thekohser. The problem with great ideas is, frequently, too many Chiefs with great ideas and not enough Indians. I'd suggest this as a project on Wikiversity, to get the papers in a place which is pretty safe from deletion based on arguments of POV, etc., and then review them for transfer to Wikibooks. But I have no problem with placement here first, and then a move to Wikiversity if that seems more appropriate at the time. What I don't like is the raw deal of you do all this work on a page or set of pages and then they are deleted because Randy from Boise and a few drive-bys thought it wasn't notable or was something else Bad. (It's hard to imagine a submitted degree thesis or an honor paper that wouldn't be appropriate, at least, for Wikiversity. But the world is big.) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
Concerning Thekosher and Abd remarks on undergraduate honors thesis, I am very confused about where papers can be uploaded on the various Wiki Foundation sites. I have a lot of papers that I would like to make more available to the general public. These are undergraduate thesis, Masters thesis, PhD thesis, a collection of working papers published by University Departments, an even larger collection of papers published in academic journals. The copyright of the published papers have been hi-jacked by various publishers, so there seems to be nothing that can be done about these - they will be locked away in print libraries (where nobody will ever read them) until long after I'm dead (which is why I suggested academic papers could be produced on a Wiki). Going one step back, there are the working papers upon which the published papers are based. They are not as polished as the published papers but are a valuable research resource that could be placed in the public domain. Working papers are peer reviewed within a University Department. When I brought up the question publishing these at Wikisource I was told "We would only look at the papers following peer review" by which I understand them to mean that the working papers would have to be peer reviewed again. This requirement would, I think, be difficult to meet because I know of nobody that would be prepared to spend their time reviewing a paper that has already been reviewed. Now Thekosher suggests collecting undergraduate thesis (I do not think this is a bad idea), when papers that are far more developed, and only one step away from being lost for 100 years, have nowhere to go. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
+
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections]] ==
::Having been peer reviewed means the work isn't original research per say. The existing peer reviewed journals where the work was previous published and polished up could be cited as sources. However the papers are probably most useful if preserved as papers, so Wikiversity would be the place for that since papers are a type of educational resource acceptable there, while non-book materials are not meant to hosted at Wikibooks. Anyone could use the papers when made available at Wikiversity as a bases for developing books at Wikibooks, if they cite the journals where the work was peer reviewed. Since copyright seems to be a concern I think confirming permission with OTRS should be done before making the papers available at Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:If it is in the Public Domain and has been published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", it is welcome at wikisource. The Wikiproject can be found at [[s:Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers]]. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
[[File:Wikimedia-logo black.svg|right|150px|link=m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017]]
   
:: <s>I think, thought I could be wrong, that wikisource requires the material to be published elsewhere before they will accept it. I suppose this keeps people from posting their rejected papers there straight away without correcting the flaws.</s> [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_candidates|2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections]].
   
== Goodbook ==
+
The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees|Board of Trustees]] (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees|on Meta-Wiki]]. Please read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Call for candidates|letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates]].
   
Please see [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thanks. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
+
'''The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Candidates|candidacy submission phase]] will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).'''
   
== We need another bureaucrat ==
+
'''We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Questions|You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki]].'''
   
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
+
Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
+
The goal of this process is to fill the '''three community-selected seats''' on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.
   
The comment above inspired me to nominate myself as a bureaucrat. As per [[WB:CRAT|policy]] I am advertising my nomination here. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
+
The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are '''inclusive''', that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
   
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
+
* April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) '''Board nominations'''
  +
* April 7 – April 20 – '''Board candidates questions submission period'''
  +
* April 21 – April 30 – '''Board candidates answer questions'''
  +
* May 1 – May 14 – '''Board voting period'''
  +
* May 15–19 – '''Board vote checking'''
  +
* May 20 – '''Board result announcement goal'''
   
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
+
In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:
   
There is [[wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#colspan, etc.|an ongoing discussion]] about the existence of individual entries for HTML tags. As notable examples, on Wiktionary, there are ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/img Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]'', ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/h1 Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/h1]'' and ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/title Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/title]'', to define, respectively, the tags ''img'', ''h1'' and ''title''.
+
* '''Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)'''
  +
** There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee|on Meta-Wiki]].
   
However, especially since the creation and maintenance of HTML tags at Wiktionary is a fairly new project, it depends on further consensus. All these pages may conceivably be kept or be deleted from Wiktionary, according to the development of possible discussions and/or votes.
+
* '''Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)'''
  +
** One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson|on Meta-Wiki]].
   
One particular argument for deleting these pages from Wiktionary is that there are already pages on Wikibooks, including ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]]'', ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/option]]'' and ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/table]]'' for similar purposes, therefore Wiktionarian versions would be redundant.
+
Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.
   
Since the particular message "Given this book is a user guide, it is organized around topics from the user's perspective, not around the names of the tags." is displayed at the top of [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List]], am I right in assuming that individual pages for each HTML tag would be better placed in Wiktionary? Or, perhaps, there are reasons for keeping them at Wikibooks, that I am unaware of?
+
More information on this year's elections can be found [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|on Meta-Wiki]]. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|election talk page on Meta-Wiki]], or sent to the election committee's mailing list, <tt dir="ltr" style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:12px;line-height:1.5">board-elections[[File:At sign.svg|15x15px|middle|link=|alt=(at)]]wikimedia.org</tt>.
   
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
On behalf of the Election Committee,<br />
  +
[[m:User:KTC|Katie Chan]], Chair, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]<br />
  +
[[m:User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland]], Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
   
:I would consider that page more of an alphabetical index of tags and the note is indicating that the chapters shown at the root of the book will use those tags as needed based on the functional organization of the book. The book as a whole is based around what kinds of things you want to do with HTML rather than going through each tag in turn. HTML tags are not anything close to what I'd imagine being hosted at Wiktionary and it seems like that's a reach for Wiktionary's scope. I compare [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]] with [[wikt:Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]] and the former is far superior. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]], 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|{{int:please-translate}}]] [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|Get help]]''</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16441214 -->
   
:: Since Wiktionary is already more reference-like, it makes sense in that view to put them there. But Wikibooks would be a more logical choice given the content and purpose of Wikibooks itself. I can't, however, imagine that a separate book would be created for the reference of each computer language. Which, in turn, means that if they were to be placed on Wikibooks, they'd necessarily have to form part of some sort of appendix within each wikibook on their respective subjects. In either case, a reference list for HTML as well as for other computer languages is certainly extremely useful. I really think we should at least have references for computer languages ''somewhere'' on Wikimedia. But where, I don't know. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== The last week of the 1st cycle of Wikimedia strategy conversation ==
   
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi, I'm Szymon, a MetaWiki Strategy Coordinator. 3 weeks ago, we invited you to join a broad discussion about Wikimedia's future role in the world. The discussion is divided into 3 cycles, and the first one ends on April, 15. So far, Wikimedians have been discussing mainly about technological improvements, multilingual support, friendly environment, cooperation with other organizations and networks.
  +
* If you'd like to get detailed information about the discussed topics, have a look at [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Summary 14th to 28th|→ that page]].
  +
* If you'd like to join the discussions, please comment '''[[Wikibooks:Wikimedia Strategy 2017|→ on the talk page of that page]]''' or [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 1|on Meta-Wiki]].
  +
* If you have any questions that weren't answered [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Frequently asked questions|there]], feel free to ask me.
   
: I think "HyperText Markup Language/Tag List" with all its subpages should be separated again into a standalone book, named along the lines of "HTML Reference". I do not think a reference book should be presented as an appendix of a guidebook; these should be two standalone books instead. On the other subject, this seems to be a Wikibooks material rather than a dictionary one. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
I'm pinging a few recently active admins. I hope you'll help me with passing along the news, maybe even join the discussion. {{ping|Pi zero|JackPotte|QuiteUnusual|Atcovi}}.
   
I think "which project" is the wrong thing to focus on. A dictionary explains how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses. Books may have a glossary, which usually only include unfamiliar words that people in the field should know without details usually found in a dictionary. Books should have glossaries. I think what Wiktionarians should focus on is if explaining how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses for programming terms is relevant to Wiktionary's scope. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
Looking forward to your input. Thank you in advance! [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]][[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
   
:: Re Dan: Maybe, but the implication is that there will be more than just one reference book. If there is a HTML reference, then we'll also want a reference book for C, Python and so on for every other computer language with a sizable collection of names. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May ==
   
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together.
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks">
:::If one particular goal of Wiktionary is to explain the grammar of many natural languages, it may as well conceivably explain the syntax of programming languages similarly. Since Wikibooks has [[Subject:English language]], in addition to the coverage of English from Wiktionary, I assume each project may treat the same subjects from different approaches, without them becoming redundant to each other. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
+
[[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/Server switch 2017|Read this message in another language]] • {{int:please-translate}}
   
There was a thread on the foundation-l mailing list on [[wmf:Resolution:Five-year_targets|five-year Wikimedia Foundation targets]] excluding non-Wikipedia projects. Below are some highlights that would be most relevant for those concerned with Wikibooks. The full postings are linked. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
The [[foundation:|Wikimedia Foundation]] will be testing its secondary data center in Dallas. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
   
{{cquote|The vast majority of our users are using Wikipedia and not the other projects, which means even a small improvement to Wikipedia is likely to have more impact than even a large improvement to one of the other projects. Sue was very clear that prioritising Wikipedia only applies to the WMF. The community can, and should, continue to improve the other projects, the WMF just feels that its limited resources are better used where they will have more impact.|||Thomas Dalton|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061533.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
They will switch all traffic to the secondary data center on '''Wednesday, 19 April 2017'''.
  +
On '''Wednesday, 3 May 2017''', they will switch back to the primary data center.
   
{{cquote|It's absolutely not clear to me (and I don't think anyone) that a focused investment in, say, textbook development is actually going to result in predictable payoff in a transformatively larger number of sustainable content contributors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a potential for such an investment to be successful, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk worth taking.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in [[mw:Manual:What is MediaWiki?|MediaWiki]], all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
   
{{cquote|But let's not kid ourselves -- transformatively increasing the productivity and success of efforts like Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource is not just a matter of tiny injections of bugfixes and extensions here and there. It's a matter of serious assessment of all underlying processes and developing social and technical architectures to support them. I hope that we'll eventually be able to make such investments, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to prioritize lower risk investments.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
'''You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.'''
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
*You will not be able to edit for approximately 20 to 30 minutes on Wednesday, 19 April and Wednesday, 3 May. The test will start at [https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20170419T14 14:00 UTC] (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Thursday 20 April and Thursday 4 May).
  +
*If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
   
::Yes. It's not surprising to me, however. It just gives me all the more motivation to prove them wrong. Also, a relevant slide from Wikimania 2010, where Erik Moeller above took a look at the other Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beyondencyclopediawikimania2010-100714133959-phpapp02.pdf&page=23 Slide 23]. Slides before and after cover the others, for comparison. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
''Other effects'':
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
*Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  +
*There will be code freezes for the weeks of 17 April 2017 and 1 May 2017. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.
   
:I thought Moeller founded Wikinews... Anyway, but how can the WB community prove them wrong? It's not like WB will get much more traffic even if we make it 100% perfect... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can [[wikitech:Switch Datacenter#Schedule for 2017 switch|read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org]]. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. '''Please share this information with your community.''' /<span dir=ltr>[[m:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|User:Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[m:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]])</span>
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
</div></div>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery|contribs]]) 17:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16545942 -->
   
:::Indeed, I would think that high quality textbooks would attract more readers due to gaining higher rankings in search results. The moral of the above is that if we want to succeed, we have to do it ourselves and the WMF cannot be relied upon for support. We prove them wrong about our prospects by not giving up even if the head honchos have forgotten where Wikipedia once was compared to where it is today. It's apparent that they have not heard the idea that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. As Wikipedia has matured, the potential for greater percentage of growth lies in the other projects. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Maryland funding free/open textbooks ==
   
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
See: https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/04/16/233236/maryland-awards-21-grants-to-prepare-open-source-textbooks [[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]][[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]][[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 04:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
   
:::::But that is offset by the fact that textbooks are way different than encyclopedias. Something like [[Excel]], [[PHP]], or [[HTML]] wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
==Creation of [[Template:Wikilink Misuse]]==
  +
I have seen several cases of people misusing wikilinks, so I created a warning template to remind them. {{User:PokestarFan/sig}} 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:OK, it looks like a softer variant of {{tl|Spam}}. [[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 07:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::It's a wikilink varient. A first-step warning, then comes {{tl|Spam}}. {{User:PokestarFan/sig}} 01:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
   
:::::: Well one thing we have going for us is price, the text book for the course I am teaching at the moment is $209 from the book store. Multiply that by the 140 students I am requiring to by the text, times the number of years the course has been running, it is really quite a lot of money. And the book is ''required'', I would love to convince the department to require something free (modulo printing costs) but we have to get the books there first. On the other hand I have seen many departments print and sell notes developed by the faculty, so if we had something that was a suitable replacement it would be possible to convince them. Last I checked university departments are not so in love with publishing companies either. (I mean really! They make minor tweaks every two years so there can be a new edition, which means students cannot by the old books used as easily. It is an amazing racket.)
+
== The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5 ==
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:::::::http://www.ck12.org is our main competitor on the secondary education front as it is aiming for approval by California's schools. Their licensing was changed to noncommercial a few months back, but I was able to pull content from their site under the cc-by-sa license before that and upload the PDFs to Commons. There are Creative Commons licensed books and material at http://cnx.org, another competitor. The advantage Wikibooks has over these two is that anyone can improve upon the content easily because this is a wiki. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
The first cycle of the [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Wikimedia movement strategy process]] recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than '''1500''' summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, '''none''' from [[Project talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017|your local discussion]] (the only comment visible there was imported from Meta). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Summary|summarized]] the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Conference_2017/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track|report from the Berlin conference]].
   
::::::::It's out of the question that secondary schools use learning materials from free sources such as WB, in a truely commercialised world, except for 'non-traditional' subjects such as [[Hong Kong Senior Secondary Liberal Studies|Liberal Studies]]. However, if the education bureau actually allows such materials to be used (which is highly unlikely), I believe it will be extremely popular. There are repeated complaints about book publishers realeasing a new edition every now and then. Sometimes it's necessary. For example, when we were learning planets in primary school, they had to make a new edition of the science book. However, most of the time the changes can be rather trivial, and like Thenub said it can be rather irritating that old books cannot be used. Also, books can be hard to find, especially 'non-traditional' subjects such as Liberal Studies. That's something they are also complaining about. I think using materials from sources such as WB has neither of these advantages and therefore has potential.
+
The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Proposing new deletion process ==
+
We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could
This has been moved to [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Proposing_new_deletion_process|the proposals reading room]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
+
* tell us '''where to announce''' the start of the Cycle 2, and '''how to do that''', so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  +
* facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikibooks.
  +
We are looking forward to your feedback!
   
== Regex ==
+
[[user:Base (WMF)|Base (WMF)]] and [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 16:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
   
What regex would I use to remove every ref on a page? -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
+
: {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} Seems to me your process is inherently (and probably irredeemably) flawed. Surely it can't be a surprise that you get no feedback from a project the Foundation has dissed for years. A veteran Wikibookian would naturally expect that participation in the process would be time wasted, and that the Foundation would use their participation to help legitimize whatever the Foundation wanted to do anyway; the difference with non-participation would be that the Foundation would use ''that'' as an excuse for ignoring us, which they would do anyway, and without our having invested profitless time in it. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: I disagree. The movement and the Foundation are two different beings, and now, we're running a strategy process for the former. The movement has many stakeholders: there are many wikis, developers, readers, long-term donors, affiliates, partners (like GLAM institutions). All of them ''are'' to be heard and are being heard, so please, don't imply that there is a match ''WMF vs. anyone''. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} Realistically that's a fiction. The "movement", in that sense, is an invention of the Foundation. The Foundation is a centralized organization that, by the nature of such organizations, seeks to centrally control, including defining the rules of the game. The "&nbsp;(WMF)" at the end of your username defies the claim that it's not a Foundation process. <p> Whatever one calls the evolved means by which such organizations manipulate the perceptions of their personnel, you're within its field of influence. I'm outside. What I see from here is, a stark contradiction between the Foundation (not its personnel) and the volunteers. A striking pattern I've observed amongst WMF personnel is that they pretty consistently underestimate the schism by a huge margin. The problem isn't just that the Foundation needs to "communicate better" with the volunteers, the Foundation's basic objectives (in practice, not on paper) are actively counter-productive. This is visible from a quick list of key concerns from the volunteer side. The sisterhood is a bottom-up decentralized structure, with the primordial goal of empowering The People to have a voice in information providing (of ''course'' it sounds idealistic &mdash; idealism is the required fuel of all volunteer-driven efforts), wiki markup is the key technical device that makes it possible, and societal evils combated notably include propaganda. The Foundation, as a top-down centralized structure, inevitably seeks to centralize control and thereby disempowers volunteer control of infrastructure, notably including sidelining and undermining wiki markup. As for propaganda... well. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::: Sorry, but WMF is younger than Wikipedia. My home Polish Wikipedia was primarily outside of the Wikimedia umbrella and branding, before WMF was established, and simply it's not true that the movement is an invention of WMF. It's precisely opposite. Let's talk about Wikimedia without mentioning WMF. It's possible. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::Dzień dobry {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} [[Special:CentralAuth/Tar_Lócesilion|you must know]] some of the disses concerning only Wikimedia. For example, I couldn't help thinking about the [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AGadgets-definition&type=revision&diff=3172807&oldid=2984463 JavaScript developers works sabotages]. I'm referring to the broken gadgets, several per site every year for at least five ones (including this week!), which have provoked the resignation of a few qualified fellows.
  +
:::::So naively I didn't propose anything hopping that our website performances, which seems to be taken for granted, would stay a priority. [[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::: Salut, [[user:JackPotte|JackPotte]]. I think your concerns fit the strategy discussions. You should elaborate on that during the Cycle 2. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:47, 29 April 2017

Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help


Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Questions before starting a book to review citizenship laws of the world[edit]

Inspired by [1] originally but no longer at the US Defense Security Service and [2] featuring a PDF authored by Office of Personnel Management of the US government, perhaps the texts qualify for s:Template:PD-USGov? If so, I would like to copy the texts with known updates to start a book titled "Citizenship", with subpages per country, then further subpages to teach readers how to acquire or lose the citizenship of a country and how to apply for a passport of a country, when information is available. Proposed examples include "Citizenship/United States", "Citizenship/United States/Naturalization", "Citizenship/United States/Loss", "Citizenship/United States/Passport", etc. However, the texts under "ANY QUESTIONS" in each country will not be copied here while not very good for readers outside the USA. Any comments before I start, please?--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 03:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have uploaded File:US OPM Citizenship Laws of the World 2001.pdf to Wikimedia Commons and I would like to use its text to be updated here.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
With no comment, I am starting Citizenship and Nationality.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Contribs negative numbers[edit]

I noticed on my contribs page, there are numbers, some with a red negative number such as, (-10). What does this mean? Littlekatie1 (discusscontribs) 01:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Littlekatie1: Those numbers are the change in page size caused by the edit. The red ones are where the edit made the page smaller. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 04:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Requesting permission to host agglomerated editions of Indian Copyright Act editions which are not supported by wikisource[edit]

Hi,

Wikisource is a project which allows only pre-published works/Acts. Now Indian Copyright Act 1957 has 6 amendments and those are hosted on english wikisource.

Undersigned would like to build agglomerated (i.e. constructed editions) from these pre published acts which are already hosted on wikisource. Fo example

I want to get build/constructed following on wikibooks

  1. Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st amendment = Second edition after amendments (Since Indian Copyright act 1957 initself amounts to be first edition.)
  2. Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd amendment = Third edition after amendments
  3. Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd amendment = Fourth edition after amendment
  4. Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd+ 4th amendment = Fifth edition
  5. Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd+ 4th+ 5th amendment = sixth edition
  6. Indian Copyright act 1957 + 1'st+2'nd + 3rd+ 4th+ 5th + 6th amendment = seventh edition

The seventh edition (and the previous also) proposed is/are supposed to look some thing like present condition of s:en:Indian_Copyright_Law page

These editions are basically (mounting texts of subseuent published texts of the act on previous added texts of the act) i.e. detailed annotations by adding every later publication of the amendment to earlier edition of the act annoted in detail.

What exacly is being planned


1. Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1st edition) This will remain on en wikisource
2. Indian Copyright (1st Amendment) Act 1983 This will remain on en wikisource
2.1 Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1983 edition) (i.e. 2nd edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.2 to no.1 )
3. Indian Copyright (2nd Amendment) Act 1984 This will remain on en wikisource
3.1 Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1984 edition) (i.e. 3rd edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.3 to no.2.1 )
4. Indian Copyright (3rd Amendment) Act 1992 This will remain on en wikisource
4.1 Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1992 edition) (i.e. 4th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.4 to no.3.1 )
5. Indian Copyright (4th Amendment) Act 1994 - This will remain on en wikisource
5.1 Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1994 edition) (i.e. 5th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.5 to no.4.1 )
6. Indian Copyright (5th Amendment) Act 1999 This will remain on en wikisource
6.1 Indian Copyright Act 1957 (1999 edition) (i.e. 6th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.6 to no.5.1 )
7. Indian Copyright (6th Amendment) Act 2012 This will remain on en wikisource
7.1 Indian Copyright Act 1957 (2012 edition) (i.e. 7th edition →page will be constructed at wikibooks by adding texts of no.7 to no.6.1 )


So namely 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 are the editions proposed to be hosted on en wikibooks. Whether it has educational value ? Ceratainly it will be having value to students of copyright law besides it will be valuable to Public at large. Along with wikisource hosted data it will work as a reference source too to some extatnt wherever allowd on Help pages for indic wiki community and in articles if allowed by wp.

Plese let me know at your earliest whether wikibooks will be willing to allow and host proposed edition pages.

Thanks and regards to all

Mahitgar (discusscontribs) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand the issue is there are some acts that have not been published and that is why they can't be included on wikisource ?
It makes no sense to me, if a law isn't published in some form it can't be enacted. Why can't wikisource host it ?
In any case as a derived project you should add a partial duplicate to wikisource static material (as I can't see it being segmented across the projects and being useful).
You need only add a educational spin or start it as an annotation work (my understanding is that the original material already has annotations), adding historical references even interlinks to the reasons behind creation and changes to the laws. Note in any case that contrary to wikisource our material is open to changes and it requires curation from someone with enough understanding to keep it correct and useful and stable in its intent. --Panic (discusscontribs) 11:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

In India, when usually any amendment to any act is passed, only the amended clauses are mentioned,(Original act and its amendment acts are avaialable under fairdeal since those were parliamentary documents. The parliamentary amendment act documentation does not include how an act would look/read along with amended clauses; Now that work is done by private sector ie. expert advocates or legal firms and these works are copyrighted.

Now problem before online (even ofline) Indic community is all these editions either are not available and where those are available are usually copyrighted; since this edition creation is usually done by non-govt agencies or indivisuals is usually copyrighted and fair dealing provisions can not be used easily, And many Indic wikipedians suffer much more and end up using some wrong editions from online. Getting copyright free versions of these editions is not an easy job. My personal experience is Indian legal fraternity still doesnot look wiki projects favourably enough so asking them to make it copyright free is a distant dream.

Only option as of now is we construct the same on our own. Segmenting across the projects was not prefered option but english wikisource community says (wikisource discussion ref) that they would host only single pre-published documents whenever those will come in public domain and are reluctant to allow hosting the above requested wikimedian constructed editions.

Curation from someone with enough understanding to keep it correct and useful and stable in its intent would not be too defficult since we have already conducted an iternship project on en-wikisource with help of New law college, Pune students and we (Indic wikimedian community) and CIS is looking forward to take internship project to next level of the work described as above to be performed, what we need is wiki community go ahead signal.

Thanks for looking into this issue. Regards

Mahitgar (discusscontribs) 13:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I now understand the problem, it still seems a bit silly since public money may have paid for that work (or not?). How are firms selected to provide such work, is it by some sort of bid process ? If not it seems a system prone to corruption and exploitation of public resources.
Can you please post the license of the content you intend to put on wikibooks (the one that wikisource refused), so we can see if the license is compatible...
Yup, you can duplicate projects (request the imports from wikisource) and expand on them after... --Panic (discusscontribs) 16:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup it is silly - Human beings do have potential to be rational but they are always not :), without knowing how an act is going to look after amendments, govt might not be bringing amedment acts. So what is wrong in publishing a complete law after amendment act from govt side itself but they dont do. There is no bidding process any one can workout and publish the amended edition of law but usually work is done by advocates and such work remains copyrighted.

Wikisource objection is of technical nature not related to licencing of the work we propose to do. We are basically working on acts of Indian legislatures so it is covered by fairdealing provisions; there are only certain restrictions relating to translations. If any translation is made need to be written that translation is not approved by govt, and this translation fairdealing is available to Indian languages only ofcourse english covered since acts mostly are made in english. You can see licencing on wikimedia commons File:Indian_Copyright_Act_1957.djvu and for the document refused by wikisource licencing below the document s:Indian Copyright Law.

Please do suggest

Mahitgar (discusscontribs) 17:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to satisfy my curiosity and further my understanding. In India law firms (as independent members of the public) have the special ability to propose law changes to the legislature ? They do it freely and keep ownership over the legal reasoning for the proposed changes. I guess that they offer some limited copies of that "privately owned" reasoning to the legislative body for the subsequent debate but everyone else has to pay to be able to read it. Will the record of the debate of such changes not be public domain and will it not duplicate that copyrighted content? Does the firms' copyright only prevent some forms of distribution ? Is a firm's copyright expressed (written and enforced) or only assumed ? (is it stated and has anyone been persecuted by violating it?)
Most legislative processes have the ability of having the public present at least motions for debate (not necessarily to enact laws, but a step to it) open to everyone (with numbers as a basis to reach the goal), having law firms have a special leg up in the process seems prone to exacerbate the influence of special interest groups in state's legislature.
I see no problem in having you start your project, select a proper name like "Agglomerated and annotated editions of Indian Copyright Acts" create the raw book structure request the imports (or you can do it yourself copy paste style as edit history will not be that important, but please create some attribution to the wikisource repository (you should also post there in its discussion area your project creation if noting else to keep a link and advertise it). --Panic (discusscontribs) 07:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


For formal process of suggesting formation and changes to law There is some thing called "Law commission" -suggessions of law commission are not binding on govt. The indian law firms may not necesssarily adopting an official channle in practical terms. Legal fraternity usually joins politics have connection with politicians, several top lawyers find thee way in legislatures representing various political parties. Parliamentary debate documentation is supposed to be copyright free still, the copies of consolidated versions may be with govt department or parliamentary commitees where in commons public does not have easy access to documentation.

Thanks The way wikisource syntax works we will preferably import some pages and templates (including the licence) and then customise for this project.

Mahitgar (discusscontribs) 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: I feel I could easily have missed some important points in the above. Here's my understanding of what's going on:
  • The legislation and its updates are available as separate pieces but not as a coherent whole with all the pieces assembled, and since the assembled document is a construct it is technically out of scope for Wikisource.
  • The one concern I see with hosting this at Wikibooks is that, in order to be within our scope, there needs to be more for Wikibooks contributors to do than just echoing Indian legislation as it comes out. There's a full-page policy on annotated texts at WB:AT, and a shorter discussion of it at WB:WIW#Wikibooks includes annotated texts with the remark
As a point of overlap between the two projects, Wikisource also allows the inclusion of annotated texts. If you would like to write a sparsely annotated text or a sparsely critical edition of a text, consider hosting your work more appropriately on Wikisource instead.
So, as I see it, you need to design the wikibook to be more than just an assembled form of the Indian legislation, and then there's no problem at all with doing the assembly here. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 00:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes[edit]

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  • The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first if you have any questions.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • Last April, nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers. The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A local page for this at Wikibooks:Wikimedia Strategy 2017 has been created, if you'd prefer to participate here instead of on Metawiki. Looking forward to your input! :) Quiddity (WMF) (discusscontribs) 00:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

The last week of the 1st cycle of Wikimedia strategy conversation[edit]

Hi, I'm Szymon, a MetaWiki Strategy Coordinator. 3 weeks ago, we invited you to join a broad discussion about Wikimedia's future role in the world. The discussion is divided into 3 cycles, and the first one ends on April, 15. So far, Wikimedians have been discussing mainly about technological improvements, multilingual support, friendly environment, cooperation with other organizations and networks.

I'm pinging a few recently active admins. I hope you'll help me with passing along the news, maybe even join the discussion. @Pi zero, JackPotte, QuiteUnusual, Atcovi:.

Looking forward to your input. Thank you in advance! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 17:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Maryland funding free/open textbooks[edit]

See: https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/04/16/233236/maryland-awards-21-grants-to-prepare-open-source-textbooksJustin (koavf)TCM 04:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation of Template:Wikilink Misuse[edit]

I have seen several cases of people misusing wikilinks, so I created a warning template to remind them. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, it looks like a softer variant of {{Spam}}. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a wikilink varient. A first-step warning, then comes {{Spam}}. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5[edit]

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, none from your local discussion (the only comment visible there was imported from Meta). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikibooks.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Seems to me your process is inherently (and probably irredeemably) flawed. Surely it can't be a surprise that you get no feedback from a project the Foundation has dissed for years. A veteran Wikibookian would naturally expect that participation in the process would be time wasted, and that the Foundation would use their participation to help legitimize whatever the Foundation wanted to do anyway; the difference with non-participation would be that the Foundation would use that as an excuse for ignoring us, which they would do anyway, and without our having invested profitless time in it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The movement and the Foundation are two different beings, and now, we're running a strategy process for the former. The movement has many stakeholders: there are many wikis, developers, readers, long-term donors, affiliates, partners (like GLAM institutions). All of them are to be heard and are being heard, so please, don't imply that there is a match WMF vs. anyone. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Realistically that's a fiction. The "movement", in that sense, is an invention of the Foundation. The Foundation is a centralized organization that, by the nature of such organizations, seeks to centrally control, including defining the rules of the game. The " (WMF)" at the end of your username defies the claim that it's not a Foundation process.

Whatever one calls the evolved means by which such organizations manipulate the perceptions of their personnel, you're within its field of influence. I'm outside. What I see from here is, a stark contradiction between the Foundation (not its personnel) and the volunteers. A striking pattern I've observed amongst WMF personnel is that they pretty consistently underestimate the schism by a huge margin. The problem isn't just that the Foundation needs to "communicate better" with the volunteers, the Foundation's basic objectives (in practice, not on paper) are actively counter-productive. This is visible from a quick list of key concerns from the volunteer side. The sisterhood is a bottom-up decentralized structure, with the primordial goal of empowering The People to have a voice in information providing (of course it sounds idealistic — idealism is the required fuel of all volunteer-driven efforts), wiki markup is the key technical device that makes it possible, and societal evils combated notably include propaganda. The Foundation, as a top-down centralized structure, inevitably seeks to centralize control and thereby disempowers volunteer control of infrastructure, notably including sidelining and undermining wiki markup. As for propaganda... well. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but WMF is younger than Wikipedia. My home Polish Wikipedia was primarily outside of the Wikimedia umbrella and branding, before WMF was established, and simply it's not true that the movement is an invention of WMF. It's precisely opposite. Let's talk about Wikimedia without mentioning WMF. It's possible. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Dzień dobry @SGrabarczuk (WMF): you must know some of the disses concerning only Wikimedia. For example, I couldn't help thinking about the JavaScript developers works sabotages. I'm referring to the broken gadgets, several per site every year for at least five ones (including this week!), which have provoked the resignation of a few qualified fellows.
So naively I didn't propose anything hopping that our website performances, which seems to be taken for granted, would stay a priority. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Salut, JackPotte. I think your concerns fit the strategy discussions. You should elaborate on that during the Cycle 2. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)