eo : Bonvolu lasi komentojn sub la linio
fr : Veuillez laisser vos commentaires sous la ligne
en : Please put comments under the line
2006-a balotado[redakti | redakti fonton]
- I see a positive contribution to Wikipedia neutrality and openness if at least the most important topics are also presented and can be discussed in at least 4 additional languages (I mean: German, French, Spanish, Chinese, possibly Japanese and Arabic too, as in the United Nations Organization website). But anyway, the official records of the Board will be kept in English, even if they come from translations from one of these important languages which together, cover more than 90% of web users in the world, at least as a secondary language.
- I don't think that a native French-speaking user in the board will be a problem, given that the board decisions will be important enough to benefit of the help of contributing translators, and given that Arno can already understand very well the English language to make sure that the translation of his own words will be accurate. So if he thinks that his own opinion is easier to formulate in French first, and then he asks for assistance in improving his own approximate translation to English, it will not be a problem. Anyway, Arno, you will have to make some efforts, and make some of your comments available in English, at least partially, and then invite your readers to help improving the translation. When you are satisfied with a translation, just note it after and request that the English version becomes authoritative and represents correctly your opinion. Decisions in the board are long enough to not require the approved English terms in emergency.
- But with your representation in the board, other French speaking wikipedians that have lots of difficulties to write in english or even to read it, will have the opportunity to get their opinion heard, or will be able to understand the most important decisions of the board with faster translations available in other languages.
- But I don't think you should promote Esperanto too high. It is certainly intersting for the small Esperanto community, but it is not a native language from anyone, so differences of interpretations across Esperanto speakers around the world will be a major difficulty, due to different cultural backgrounds. I hope you will support this language only as a second language but that you'll choose another primary language (one of those 9 languages with more than 100,000 articles in Wikipedia, plus English for which you will always provide at least a reasonnable summary) for ALL your discussions regarding board procedures, discusions and discussions.
- If language diversity is an excellent challenge for the board, which will improve its NPOV, I do think that you will need to make more contacts with the translator working groups, and invite the admins of all major wikipedias to create the necessary sections in their Wikipedias to promote the translation of the board discussions and decisions, and to make contacts with Wikipedia embassies whose work are to negociate common goals across all wiki projects.
- Personnally, I support your candidature, and I will support candidatures from outside US. The board really needs members whose primary work is not only on English Wikis; For now you are the only one from outside US and the only one promoting another primary language. I hope we'll also have German and Spanish native speakers soon at the Board, living in countries where English is not the primary language. Wikimedia needs such openness, as it will improve the collaboration across projects, and will not base all decisions only on the very advanced current state of the English wiki and its hundreds of admins and subcommities and working groups. The solutions that could be developed in EnWiki are not immediately translatable to other projects.
- The other important thing is legal: some issues involve knowledge of international laws, and these are completely ignored by American English members of the board, who have lots of difficulties to locate the appropriate sources and contacts or understand the issues. With other language native readers, it will be much easier to evaluate those legal constraints, when the most accurate and authoritative documents are definitely NOT in English but in other languages. The most difficult issues that concerns Wikimedia projects is licencing and copyright issues, and the effects of delimitation of applicable legislations to juridictions.
- That's something that the GNU Foundation is also considering now, in the current draft for the GPLv3 (and related licences like the LGPL and later the GFDL too...), whose wording will allow the inclusion of enough additional terms that even the LGPL and the GFDL may be seen as particular applications of the GPLv3. If you read the ongoing GPLv3 discussions at the FSF, you know what this means: a better international protection, and better protection against patent claims which are now threatening even the most respectable open-sourced or free projects (this has already been the cause of some Wikimedia projects being closed and completely cleared, causing a real damage for those that contributed a lot to what was thought as a well-behaved and well protected respectable project for the benefit of everyone). If the Board had better understood the international issues, such thing like the termination of the French WikiQuote would have not happened, because there would have been serious discussions to help controling better the contents on WikiQuote, and to protect preventively the work from legal issues abd claims by third parties. The board would have decided soon the relevant policies that help protecting the projects. It's notable that the Board did not understand the consequences of the French and European legislations, and the effects of the changing international environment with the growing influence of the WPO, or evolving legislation that are now promoting DRM in every content, including free ones, but using proprietary patented DRM solutions and protocols.
- So I think that important contribution from international members at the board will come when they challenge the projects with the evolution of international legislation, and with the ongoing projects that are fighting against proprietary DRM solutions (I mean here: the new GPL, the Creative Common licence, and related tools and working groups, including groups in US and elsewhere defending the freedom of speech for everyone, not only for specific sets of citizens or commercial and non-profit organizations of one country).
- So I will vote for you, and I hope there will be a German candidate too immediately. The board really needs such international representation. fr:verdy_p 22:26, 7. Aŭg 2006 (UTC)
Sekvo de la diskuto je Wikimedia, l'anglais et les autres langues (franclingve).
Collaborative consensus-based nature.[redakti | redakti fonton]
Chapter/board[redakti | redakti fonton]
What do you think of the relationship ? Do you see the relation as a federation type or a branch type ? (without or with legal ties). Do you think that chapters should have an authorization to use brand name and logo for deals (such as a DVD publishing) or should the Foundation handle this from a legal perspective ? What is your position in term of membership (should the Foundation have members or not ?). Anthere meta:User talk:Anthere
Comment perçois tu la relation entre les associations locales et la fondation ? Plutôt une structure basée sur l'affiliation (avec partage des risques légaux) ou plutôt une structure en fédération ? Estimes tu que les associations locales devraient avoir l'autorisation d'utiliser les noms de marques et les logos (par exemple pour publier un DVD) ou la Fondation devrait elle tout gérer de manière centralisée ?
Quelle est ta position concernant la position de membres de la Fondation (la Fondation devrait elle ou non avoir des membres ?). Voir aussi m:bylaws update. Peux tu commenter sur le sujet ?