notablog - Commentaires2024-02-14T11:34:52+01:00urn:md5:e838f6103b73d5ce71306164b60e8cbcDotclearLe Thunderbird de mes rêves ressemble à Opéra Mail - Free backlinks blogurn:md5:080ab8d5aaa097cb951c8328e2b169122024-02-11T23:36:09+01:002024-02-11T23:36:09+01:00Free backlinks blog<p>Hi, tһe ᴡhole tһing іs goiong well hеre and ofcourse еvery<br />
one is sharing data, that's aϲtually fine, keep up writing.</p>Two Minds, a Tune - сиалис 40 мг инструкцияurn:md5:208dd48fdffd3aa39f99b54b30aad3b02023-12-30T17:48:19+01:002023-12-30T17:48:19+01:00сиалис 40 мг инструкция<p>Wonderful, what a web site it is! This website provides useful facts to us, keep it up.</p>How long is it since you've received a letter? - Marianneurn:md5:340227f50c8fa43d7d9b5a7e859dd8632013-05-15T08:54:08+02:002013-05-15T07:54:08+02:00Marianne<p>Ok, Delphine, send me one in Berlin :) you know the address there ?</p>How long is it since you've received a letter? - Flourn:md5:53032cf84132a282c2d52fca6a37a3292013-05-14T10:57:11+02:002013-05-14T09:57:11+02:00Flo<p>Let s go!</p>How long is it since you've received a letter? - Anneurn:md5:0987993b7e1a642884286a82e9647cce2013-05-13T19:02:41+02:002013-05-13T18:02:41+02:00Anne<p>That´s such a kind idea...<br />
I actually still get/send quite a few letters, last one just last Friday... We are a bit old-fashioned in the family.</p>Obsolètes - Aujourd'hui logophile - notafishurn:md5:ae4030b9d8ec22c4b1713dbf4bc7e87f2013-05-07T23:04:20+02:002013-05-07T22:04:20+02:00notafish<p>Deal. Die Regeln sind eigentlich <a href="http://open-time.net/obsoletes/pages/Participer" hreflang="fr" rel="ugc nofollow">hier</a> und die Wörte sind "veraltete Wörte", die man auf Französisch nicht mehr benutzt. :)</p>Obsolètes - Aujourd'hui logophile - Aliceurn:md5:7d9e5fd1f88717257c57af1ea7a9c7ce2013-05-07T22:18:47+02:002013-05-07T21:50:43+02:00Alice<p>OK, dann lass uns spielen: Wer hält es bis zum Jahresende durch? Mich findest du auf <a href="http://getting-tired.blogspot.de/" title="http://getting-tired.blogspot.de/" rel="ugc nofollow">http://getting-tired.blogspot.de/</a> und ich starte morgen. Wer verliert, lässt sich was Tolles einfallen. Deal?</p>Obsolètes - Aujourd'hui logophile - notafishurn:md5:039539c1986b4238192d0215e0a1d9c12013-05-06T13:59:48+02:002013-05-06T13:01:33+02:00notafish<p>Tatsächlich heißt das, dass ich jeden Tag <strong>mindestens</strong> was kurzes schreibe... Sehen wir Mal ob ich das halte...</p>Obsolètes - Aujourd'hui logophile - Aliceurn:md5:88378d505175a74812da671b7f7bf1b82013-05-06T13:21:38+02:002013-05-06T12:55:51+02:00Alice<p>Heißt das, dass du jetzt jeden Tag etwas Kurzes schreibst?</p>29 juin - 7/366 - Aujourd'hui tout le monde ne dit pas merci. - VRurn:md5:45f9a2f31a6c7b2b3a218bd0412791be2012-12-10T15:36:44+01:002013-04-03T08:59:17+02:00VR<p>Quelle belle verité... Et si on lui écrivait toutes une belle carte à madame P. et qu on y ajoutait les dessins de nos enfants! Elle l'a vraiment mérité! [edit du nom :)]</p>Multitrack - Hadr1urn:md5:5ba8eecda91901650abfebfe8f3a8f992011-09-06T15:59:59+02:002011-09-06T14:59:59+02:00Hadr1<p>Super intéressant ces vidéos ! :-)</p>All Your Money Are Belong To Us - notafishurn:md5:f65d004f30d903be31d5d051cb00ba682011-08-10T13:59:22+02:002011-08-10T12:59:22+02:00notafish<p>BirgitteSB, first, I want to thank you for the time and thought you give to the issue (foundation-l and here), because I believe it is an important issue. And reading your comment, I see that I have expressed myself badly in that part of my post. So let me try to put everything into context. We are talking here about fundraising, ie. gathering donations. In that regard, I believe that I am not too far from the actual situation. As it is, the WMF is the only organisation that is allowed to fundraise in the US. It's the only organisation that offers tax deductibility to US people. That makes it, in the US, regarding fundraising, as acting as a "national organisation". </p>
<p>What I am trying to say here, and I am largely basing myself on Sebastian's post about subsidiarity, is that the Foundation operates as both a national entity, and an international entity. It's a fact. Not a judgement. Whether it does that job well or poorly wasn't in my post. But since you address it, let me try and comment on your concerns. I agree 100% with you that the Foundation being located in the US is probably the biggest impediment of the US community getting organized in form of a chapter (or even a set of "more local" chapters). The US, by its large geography, already has a disadvantage in comparison to say France or Germany, not to mention the Netherlands, because it is simply harder to get together, and experience proves that getting together goes a long way in shaping a chapter. The Foundation has also been steering projects on US territory (Public Policy Initiative for example), effectively taking away the learning curve from the community to develop such programs. I am not saying that these are bad projects, the results are, at least I find, amazing (see on the Outreach wiki what is going on in the <a href="http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Program" rel="ugc nofollow">Campus Ambassador program</a> for example).</p>
<p>I really did not mean to hint that the US community is better served by the WMF than communities that might be served by a chapter. In the light of the principle of subsidiarity, I believe that it isn't. As great as the Ambassadors' program may be, I can't help the feeling that it has been used as a springboard for the Global South development axis, and that in that regard, the Foundation is not addressing directly the needs or wishes of the US community, but pursuing a greater "goal", which is alright if the WMF is the head of an international movement, but which is not alright if the WMF is to be the only independant fundraising organisation in the US. </p>
<p>My take is, you can't be at the international level and the local level at the same time and be effective in both. This is exactly what we are experiencing now. The Foundation is trying to be both, and unfortunately, not exactly succeeding at any. Neither the local level (successes exist, but hey are extremely partial) nor the international level (local level is challenging the direction the Foundation is trying to give).</p>
<p>I hope it makes my thoughts clearer.</p>All Your Money Are Belong To Us - BirgitteSBurn:md5:e30dcf22e53799bdbfb48d6f227606032011-08-06T03:52:38+02:002011-08-06T02:52:38+02:00BirgitteSB<p>I have a huge issue with your suggestion the WMF is a US chapter. It not in anyway the US Chapter. It is merely the largest impediment to a US Chapter. That WMF=US Chapter is the last argument anyone from an existing chapter should be making. Right now anyone unhappy about the US situation could blame the WMF just much as the chapters. More actually because the chapters weren't exepted to inherently think of other groups to the same as WMF. But if you really want to push all these unaffilialted Wikimedians into an emotional response against your position continue suggest they are being better served than French Wikimedians, etc. I would imagine that you really don't want to provoke that sort of reaction and weaken your position when you instead you could promote a stronger position for WMFR by championing the underserved Americans being sabatoged by the WMF's greed!!!! Or you could rachet down the rhetoric altogether and negotiate a way to see that ALL parties involved are given the responsibility of stewardship over donations and the ability to be a check against one another. And ensure that one party's position is not made so strong that in the unlikely event of future malfeasance the other parties are obligated to continue funding it.</p>All Your Money Are Belong To Us - notafishurn:md5:2707d0589299eb2d01a1e0705fcdd4ec2011-08-03T11:16:38+02:002011-08-10T16:54:45+02:00notafish<p>Jan-Bart De Vreede asks <sup>[1]</sup>:</p>
<p>
<em>I have a question: you keep referring to "amount raised by the chapters"... what is that? Is that money that was donated directly to the chapters in a special fundraiser by the chapters, or is this money that is actually raised by the WMF fundraiser/donation button but donated by people that happened to fall in the geographic location of the chapter?</em></p>
<p><em>So lets say we have a country which has no chapter but the citizens of that country donate an average of $100,000 per year because they love wikimedia... once a chapter is formed there... is that money which is now automatically "raised by the chapters" in your view?</em></p>
<p>----------</p>
<p>Well, I guess this comment comes to prove my point ;), at least some people in the Foundation do think that the money belongs "to the Foundation". So let me try to explain. </p>
<p>When I say "raised by the chapters", I am probably not using the semantically correct phrase. I should say "through" the chapters instead. But I would use the same for the Foundation. Actually, the correct thing would be to say "raised through the projects" and if we wanted to be even more correct,"through Wikipedia". The Foundation has made tremendous progress (and tremendous is not even close to reality) in managing the fundraiser. The chapters have too. Not all of them, and not all of them with the same success, but as far as I know, the fundraiser has been (and the Foundation advertises this too) very much of a collaborative thing. Community, chapters, staff, many people have been working on it for the past few years. Having been a treasurer of a chapter twice, and having followed the fundraiser developments internationally and extremely closely in at least two chapters, I say without hesitation that yes, the chapters have been working very hard at making the fundraiser a success in their own country. The technical infrastructure that allows having a banner at all belongs to the Foundation. However, landing pages and ensuing messaging have been developped by the chapters. So I have to say that I find calling these international and movement wide efforts "the Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser" a bit of a stretch. </p>
<p>While donors may happen to fall in the geographic location of the chapter, I guess that people in exactly the same way "happen to fall in the geographic location of the Foundation", so I don't really see this as a valid argument to brush away the efforts that have been undertaken movement wide to make the fundraiser a success and attribute the success to the Foundation only. Historically, older chapters have managed donors, just like the Foundation, with more or less success, but in the end, the donors return, so the job can't have been done all that badly.</p>
<p>Your second question is a bit trickier, and my sidenote brushes on it. There are (few) countries in which there are lots of donors, and where the donation amount is very important, and where there is no chapter. So indeed, it makes no sense to say that the money has been raised "by the chapter" before they even exist, or on day one of their coming into existence. But while it does not make sense to say that this money has been raised "by the chapters", I don't think it makes sense either to say that this money has been raised "by the Foundation". If anyone, then the community, which has made Wikipedia an amazing resource in this or that language and has provided incentive for donors to support the projects, and maybe (hopefully) the idea behind them. The <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf" rel="ugc nofollow">donors' survey</a> (p.13) does not ask the donors whether or not they're aware of programs supported by the Foundation or Chapters, which is too bad, but in the answers provided and given, the reason why donors give is pretty clear: "To keep Wikipedia free for all users" (90.2%), "To maintain Wikipedia's independence and objectivity" (88.6 %), "Because I feel it’s important to support something [they] use so heavily" (81.1 %) and "To provide access to knowledge to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it" (80.8 %). That last one being clearly about Wikipedia being the vessel for access to knowledge.</p>
<p>So this brings on the question: "Do we actually fundraise succesfully for our mission (which goes way beyond the Wikimedia projects) <strong>as organisations</strong>?" There are still a lot of tests to make and data to analyze, to see how much of the money comes in because we have fantastic programs or whether it's all about "just" Wikipedia and a nagging banner. Until then, and meaning no offense to those who've been working extremely hard to make the fundraiser happen, be it on the Foundation side, within the community or in the chapters, I don't think that we can say that the money is being raised by "anyone" but the Wikimedia projects. And actually, I think it is how it should be.</p>
<p><em><strong>[1]</strong> Jan-Bart's question was <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/100192352124785627932/posts/12AvEuECAbt" rel="ugc nofollow">on a thread in Google+</a>, where he put it because he couldn't comment here for some reason. I just copy/pasted.</em></p>Noviny, trucs et astuces - NuageDeFarineurn:md5:6c6ea689cbdb33563da947e26205addb2011-07-29T19:50:11+02:002011-07-29T18:50:11+02:00NuageDeFarine<p>Merci beaucoup, votre article m'a été d'une précieuse aide ! :-)</p>
<p>A tout hasard, savez-vous comment je puis remplacer les dernières nouvelles à droite par les derniers commentaires (avec un petit extrait) ?</p>
<p>Merci beaucoup :-)</p>Lignes de faille (roman) - Nicourn:md5:b8b59f145cfd1124ea6f9bc6685296fc2011-02-27T19:34:54+01:002011-02-27T19:34:54+01:00Nico<p>Excellent roman, très original et prenant: je l'ai vraiment adoré.</p>Wikimedia Chapters: We Want to Hire Someone, Where Do We Start? (part II) - Raystormurn:md5:a3ea77478003f59771f640c1ea3880a92011-02-13T15:44:49+01:002011-02-13T15:44:49+01:00Raystorm<p>I think at some point all chapters will have to hire people, even if it is on a case-by-case basis. You might get lucky and have among your volunteers people who can fulfill the roles of secretary, project manager, etc, but they will be doing so in their spare time, which also means that results (and accountability) may be low, even despite their best efforts. You cannot ask a volunteer to leave their day job and concentrate all of his or her efforts on a non-paid position. That's unfeasable.</p>
<p>This doesn't mean a chapter made up only of volunteers cannot get things done or achieve results. But I think it may take longer and be way more stressful for all involved.</p>Deux-cent quarante huit kilomètres à l'heure - notafishurn:md5:bf25baab9aae02d3ba9709e2c83a3ba02010-10-11T15:02:19+02:002010-10-11T14:02:19+02:00notafish<p>Bonjour Angélique,</p>
<p>Merci à vous d'avoir visité ces pages :). Oui, je suis en Allemagne. Une expat de plus ;).</p>Deux-cent quarante huit kilomètres à l'heure - angelique villeneuveurn:md5:fd4ebc12226a8033dae9d6639a83a1f92010-10-10T18:14:34+02:002010-10-10T17:14:34+02:00angelique villeneuve<p>merci, notafish, d'avoir ach'té mon Grand paradis!... Je ne connaissais pas votre blog, et j'aime bien, j'aime aussi la façon dont vous écrivez. Vous êtes en Allemagne, c'est ça?</p>Everything He Sees - Midourn:md5:ac6ab6f05e8331f81d4c89880f61a51f2010-09-22T18:01:49+02:002010-09-22T17:01:49+02:00Mido<p>I love this image!<br />
Hope to see you and your 2 little kids soon :)</p>