Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books
On 13 March 2012 20:22, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in them still? Will you miss it? Yes, I'll miss the heavy, fascinating old books. To this day, nothing seems better on a stormy day than to curl up with a hot cup of tea in a big cozy chair, with some kind of book filled with facts - an encyclopedia volume, an almanac, an atlas... I learned how to read with our old set of encyclopedias - they were old even when I was reading them - but they exposed me to so many new ideas and instilled in me a thirst for knowledge that has never quite been quenched. Much as I love the internet - and Wikipedia - there is something different about holding a book in one's hand, about the sense of discovery that is innately different when physically turning a page. We use different parts of our brain to read printed matter as compared to computer screens, and studies are continuing to better understand how this affects the manner in which people learn and retain knowledge. It's an interesting commentary about our society that in just over two generations our Western culture has gone from the dream of families having their own reference library to considering such printed materials obsolete. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Will Beback
James, perhaps a more appropriate place to have this conversation is either at the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee noticeboard, or alternately if you want a different audience, the Wiki-en-L mailing list. Your issue is project-specific and there are more appropriate venues for you to raise your concerns than a WMF-wide mailing list intended to deal with cross-project or all-project issues. An individual editor being banned on one specific project does not meet that threshold. Risker On 11 March 2012 12:49, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: Great now if only that where true. With the vote being 8:4 and my understanding of the situation I am fairly certain it is not. The editors with a medical background on the committee did not support the ban of Will. As this controversy surrounded medical content their positions should be given greater weight. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
The greatest challenge with the entire notion of vanishing is that it is intended to be permanent. That is, the person who wants to vanish should not return in the future, under any guise. I cannot speak for any other project here, but I know that there has been a non-negligible amount of disruption from people who used the right to vanish and then returned to participate in the project under a new account - often editing in the same area, commenting on the same topics, and revisiting prior disputes without linking to their prior account. On the other hand, as an oversighter I've seen hundreds of pages created by people that contain huge amounts of personal information (not just about themselves, but often their family and friends as well) that I have little doubt they will come to regret in the future. While we try to mitigate the harm as much as possible, these pages get mirrored all over the web and are well outside our control. I can understand why legislators will have to really think carefully about this one. Even within our own communities, there are wildly different opinions on this issue. Risker/Anne On 11 February 2012 12:30, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: Is the worry primarily around article-space, or around Wikipedia users? There's already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing, though it would have to be made somewhat more rigorous (and no longer a mere courtesy) if it were an actual legal obligation. As a non-lawyer, I would consider our uses in article-space to all fall under the exceptions, though I wouldn't want to speculate on whether a court would agree. At least in principle, Wikipedia articles only cover material of historical, cultural, scientific, artistic, sociological, etc. interest. If anything, we're more often criticized for upholding that viewpoint too strongly; vociferous complaints about Wikipedia's deletionism seem to pop up in nearly every external discussion of Wikipedia. Though this may lower the bar for people wanting information removed from Wikipedia, by providing an alternate route from the usual libel-law approach that doesn't require them to prove libel, so might be bad pragmatically. -Mark On 2/11/12 7:42 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: Forwarding from internal. The right to vanish... or a part of it... proposed as law. -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Symondsrichard.symonds@**wikimedia.org.ukrichard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM Subject: [Internal-l] Right to be Forgotten To: interna...@lists.wikimedia.org http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-16677370http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16677370 A new law promising internet users the right to be forgotten will be proposed by the European Commission on Wednesday. It says people will be able to ask for data about them to be deleted and firms will have to comply unless there are legitimate grounds to retain it. The move is part of a wide-ranging overhaul of the commission's 1995 Data Protection Directive. Richard Symonds OfficeDevelopment Manager Wikimedia UK --**-- As Bence noted: You can find the December 2011 draft at http://epic.org/privacy/intl/** EU-Privacy-Regulation-29-11-**2011.pdfhttp://epic.org/privacy/intl/EU-Privacy-Regulation-29-11-2011.pdf (Article 15 is the relevant part). The stated exceptions do not include expense or technical difficulty, but include except to the extent that the retention of the personal data is necessary: (a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 79; or (b) for historical, statistical and scientific research purposes in accordance with Article 83; or (c) for compliance with a legal obligation to retain the data by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject; this law shall meet an objective of public interest, respect the essence of the right to the protection of personal data and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued; or (d) in the cases referred to in paragraph 4. I'll leave it to the lawyers to decide how this affects Wikimedia (which is hosted outside the EEA) and whether any of the exceptions can be applied to it. __**_ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __**_ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats and the appointed seats is subtle but important. My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused on board operations and governance. so the Board might do a self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and find it. That's me. It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps. So we as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and were incredibly luck to find Bishakha. The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters is broader. Many more people are involved in identifying and surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider and more thoughtful net. And there is less constraint to meet specific governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's pursuit of the mission. - This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 17:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. I didn't get that impression at all. The board doesn't just need to be representative of the community. It also needs to be capable of running the WMF as well as possible. We need to balance those two goals. Having a couple of chapter-selected seats is a good way of doing that. _ In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. I would think that direct appointment of those with specific skill sets would be how the board ensure it is capable of running the WMF as well as possible. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 17:38, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote: it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. Anne, my personal view is that elections capture the input of a certain subset of our community: those editors who are fairly active and who are interested in governance issues. That subset of our editors is an important part of our community. Having seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters offers a chance to involve of another subset of our community: those who are interested enough in governance issues to get involved in the leadership / decision-making of movement organizations. That's also an important subset of our community. But, to your point, neither of these two subsets alone nor the combination of the two fully represents our movement. Many groups are excluded. For example, the silent majority of 75,000+ active editors who haven't historically voted in elections. Or our 475 million readers. etc., etc., etc. Governance and suffrage in an online community is really, really hard. I don't think we have the perfect system. Our current board structure was put in place less than 4 years ago. The one thing I know is that it will change as we try new things to make it better. I want us to continue improving it. And I for one am open to absolutely any suggestion for how we can do that. I do agree that governance and suffrage is hard; however, it shouldn't intentionally be designed to give a disproportionate representation (and essentially double suffrage) to one subset of the community over another. Chapter members have the opportunity to influence five seats on the Board; those who are unable (for many variations of unable) to be chapter members are only able to influence three seats. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria. So...a few questions. Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered? Thanks, Risker/Anne On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July 2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board membership is unpaid. The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with essential support. The successful candidates will have: - The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together; - Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s projects; - Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity; - The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team and independently; - A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional language would be well regarded); - Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the ability and willingness to travel. Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would be an advantage. The selection process is set out here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal) and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha (Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate *Béria Lima*, Moderator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups. On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Risker. let's go by question. *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? * Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as candidates. Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place? * * * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym). I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their candidacy is accepted, is that correct? As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during their Board candidacy? *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered?* With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No. There are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened last year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: Be*ginning in July 2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years*[1]. I am pleased to hear that questions and suggestions from the majority of Wikimedians will be accepted. One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting. Can you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will it be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one representative be participating? Thanks again, Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 19:36, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: snip It got worse. They changed it to Wikimedia Executive Director and when it was pointed out that it should be Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Philippe (who was running the fundraiser last year) said (on 13 December 2010 on the Fundraising mailing list, which is private so I can't give a link): So yeah, we're doing everything we can to maximize the income. (I won't quote the entire paragraph, but the context is essentially Yeah, we know there are problems with these banners but they raise money so we're going to do it anyway.) It is, as you say, a very disconcerting attitude. Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today, you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This is called learning from experience, and it is a talent that is highly prized within the WMF family of projects. After all, there is not a one of us who has not made an error in action or judgment. Please stop. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 21:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the spending priorities of the WMF, I'd suggest you start a separate thread. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man and then come back. _ I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to me that it is your straw man that has derailed things here. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 21:46, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to me that it is your straw man that has derailed things here. The whole point I've been trying to make is that fundraising and spending are intimately related and can't be considered separately from each other. I'd suggest you consider starting a discussion either in a new thread, or elsewhere on Meta, to give feedback to the WMF Board on its spending priorities. But I am quite sure it can wait until tomorrow. Have a happy new year, Thomas. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
On 24 December 2011 11:00, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather silly. I think you are confounding what moves around in your mind with consensus. The former is what people inside your own mind think, the latter is what a group of people think (and usually act upon). Jussi-Ville, you are being unnecessarily hostile here. So far, everyone who's posted here has found themselves confounded by what you have written in this thread, and they have given you that feedback. Rather than blaming everyone else for failing to understand your point, perhaps you might want to take the time to consider what message you are trying to get through to people, and try to find a way to explain what your concerns are without making vague allusions and being so combative. Best, Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] IRC office hours with the Head of Reader Relations, Thursday Dec. 22nd
Since that 0:00 UTC is always confusing to me, would I be correct to assume that this would be taking place Wednesday evening in North America? Risker On 19 December 2011 19:28, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey all, I think most Foundation-l subscribers know Philippe Beaudette from the Foundation, but perhaps not all are aware of his title, Head of Reader Relations, or exactly what that department is and what role it fills. If you'd like to hear an update on the office of reader relations at the WMF and generally interrogate Philippe, ;) this Thursday at 0:00 UTC is your chance. Details are on Meta for how to join as well as time conversion.[1] Thanks, -- Steven Walling Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Smurfs Movie is infringing on wikipedia copyright
Just think...if it is included in an online advertisement, Wikipedia could use SOPA to bring down the film for copyright infringement Risker On 17 December 2011 06:20, Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnat...@gmail.comwrote: It was mentioned on the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee Mailing List in September. Regards, Ole On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: The smurfs move disturbed me when I watched it, Not only does the actor in the movie lift an image off the wikipedia and use it in his advertising campaign, but the movie itself gives no credits to wikipedia on the webpage etc. http://rdfintrospector2.blogspot.com/2011/12/smurfs-movie-wikipedia-copyleft.html mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner advertising of the evil sort?
On 9 December 2011 15:32, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard of it before. And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for meta, there was a page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER I disable the banner. And again, that was not a on-wiki consensus: That was an action who started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on en.wiki I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me. _ Unless I'm missing something critical here, I believe it was the Research Committee, not the WMF staff, who approved the use of a central notice banner. Whether or not that is within their scope is a separate issue that should be discussed elsewhere. I am pleased to see the creation of a page at Meta to discuss Central Notice requests. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
consensus opposition to bot-delivered talk page notices. One editor involved in the discussion suggested site notices (which I believe were interpreted by the participants to mean a local site notice) and two others mentioned watchlist notices. The subsequent discussion about central notices discussed the possibility of developing a narrowcasting ability for such notices, and discussed specifically notices directly related to WMF projects or activities. It did not, in any way, address the concept of using a central notice to promote a non-WMF activity (such as this research project). Indeed, this is the first use of a central notice for anything not directly related to an obviously WMF-related activity. The ability to narrowcast central notices is a positive advancement; however, the processes for proposing and determining the appropriateness of a narrowcast are poorly publicized, and some of them don't appear to have even existed until after this notice was taken down. There are still no community-approved guidelines for the use of central notices, although a draft one is currently up for comment.[1] An RFC initiated in August 2010 with respect to global banners/central notices, well in advance of the development of the narrowcasting ability, strongly supported consensus approval on Meta for non-fundraising global banners.[2] Now that there is the ability to target central notices to only one project or community, it is extremely important that that community be directly notified of such discussion - a discussion that never took place in any public forum that I can see in advance of this central notice being activated. The links above include one to a private mailing list that the majority of readers of this list have no access to. You may want to consider asking the persons whose contributions are contained in that particular message to grant permission for it to be reproduced here so that the rest of us aren't left in the dark about who said what. I don't begridge scholars carrying out approved research with Wiki?edians who volunteer to do so; in fact, I've responded to several requests myself. I do, however, have concerns about any research that expects to contact 40,000 editors and involve 1500 of them; that is a very significant portion of our active editorship on the English Wikipedia project. I'm curious to know if scholars have shown much interest in studying some of the other projects as much as they've initiated studies on enwp. Risker/Anne [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice_banner_guidelines http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_banners ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Hi Jerome - please show me where it says that; I've not been able to verify that interpretation at all. My understanding is that the 30,000 are users with fewer than 100 edits per month on average, not that they are new users. Risker/Anne 2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux jerome.hergu...@gmail.com I do, however, have concerns about any research that expects to contact 40,000 editors and involve 1500 of them; that is a very significant portion of our active editorship on the English Wikipedia project. Commenting on this: out of those targeted 40,000 editors, 30,000 or so are *newly registered users*, so that the sample remains somewhat representative of the diversity we find on en:wp. The rest of it indeed are active contributors. Regards, Jérôme. 2011/12/10 Risker risker...@gmail.com On 9 December 2011 22:51, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: I’d like to give everybody on this list some information on the Berkman/Sciences Po research project that many of you have been discussing here. On Thursday the Wikimedia Foundation announced the launch of a banner to support a study led by a team at the Berkman Center/Sciences Po and recruiting participants from the English Wikipedia editor community [1]. The banner was taken down within hours of its launch after concerns raised in various community forums (the Admin Noticeboard [2], the Village Pump Tech [3], various IRC channels and mailing lists such as foundation-l [4] and internal-l [5]) that the design was confusing, that it was perceived as a commercial ad and that the community approval process and privacy terms were unclear and hardly visible. Here’s what happened until the launch, what went wrong after the launch and what we are planning to do next. ==The prequel== This proposal went through a long review process, involving community forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010. The Berkman research team first approached WMF to discuss this study in January 2010. They suggested a protocol to recruit English Wikipedia contributors to participate in an early version of this study by March 2010 and posted a proposal to the Administrators’ noticeboard to get community feedback [6]. The community response at that time opposed the proposed recruitment protocol (posting individual invitation messages on user talk pages). It was suggested instead that the recruitment should be handled through a CentralNotice banner to be displayed to registered editors, but concerns were raised on how to minimize the disruption. To address these concerns, the proposal went through a full review with the Wikimedia Research Committee, that was completed in July 2011. The RCom evaluated the methods, the recruitment strategy, the language used in the survey and approved the proposal pending a final solution for the recruitment taking into account the concerns expressed by the community [7]. Based on suggestions made by community members (e.g. [8]) the research team started to work on a technical solution to selectively display a banner to a subset of registered editors of the English Wikipedia meeting certain eligibility conditions. WMF agreed to invest engineering effort into a system that would allow CentralNotice to serve contents to a specific set of editors – functionality that would benefit future campaigns run by the community, chapters or the Foundation [9] [10]. A new CentralNotice backend was then designed to look up various editor metrics (i.e. number of contributions, account registration date and editor privileges) – all public information available from our database – and to perform a participant eligibility check against these metrics. A banner would then be displayed to eligible participants, posting the above data (user ID + editor metrics) along with a unique token to the server hosting the survey upon clicking. On the landing page of the survey, participants would have the possibility to read the privacy terms of the survey and decide whether to take it or not. Throughout the review process of this recruitment protocol, the research team received constant feedback from the Foundation’s legal team, the community department, the tech department and the communication team before the campaign went live. The campaign was announced in the CentralNotice calendar one month before its launch [11] and the launch was with a post on the Foundation’s blog. The banner was enabled on December 8 at 11:00pm UTC. 800+ participants completed the study within a few hours since its launch. The banner was then taken down by a meta-admin a few hours after the launch due to the concerns described above. So what went wrong? ==A few explanations we owe you
Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Hi Jerome - The only documentation from the research team that I have seen so far with respect to the target participation is in the initial proposal on enwp back in 2010, when it was proposed to leave 40,000 talk page messages; there was no indication that 30,000 of them would be newly registered users at that time. Not to criticize the genuine attempt at information sharing on Dario's part - it is much appreciated - but there is so much change in what was put forward from what we had initially been approached about that it's preferable to hear it from the researcher's mouth, and to have it well documented. Something that has never been clear is the reason that English Wikipedia editors were identified as the preferred target; there does not appear to be anything in this study that is particularly oriented toward Wikipedia activity. Risker/Anne 2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux jerome.hergu...@gmail.com This is actually not the case. Those 30,000 users or so are users who registered their Wikipedia account 30 days prior to the launch of the study. There are no other requirements for those users to be eligible to participate. This is in line with Dario's previous message: the banner has been designed to target a subsample of the English Wikipedia registered editor population. Based on estimates by the research team, the eligibility criteria apply to about 10,000 very active contributors and about 30,000 new editors of the English Wikipedia. Regards, Jérôme. 2011/12/10 Risker risker...@gmail.com Hi Jerome - please show me where it says that; I've not been able to verify that interpretation at all. My understanding is that the 30,000 are users with fewer than 100 edits per month on average, not that they are new users. Risker/Anne 2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux jerome.hergu...@gmail.com I do, however, have concerns about any research that expects to contact 40,000 editors and involve 1500 of them; that is a very significant portion of our active editorship on the English Wikipedia project. Commenting on this: out of those targeted 40,000 editors, 30,000 or so are *newly registered users*, so that the sample remains somewhat representative of the diversity we find on en:wp. The rest of it indeed are active contributors. Regards, Jérôme. 2011/12/10 Risker risker...@gmail.com On 9 December 2011 22:51, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: I’d like to give everybody on this list some information on the Berkman/Sciences Po research project that many of you have been discussing here. On Thursday the Wikimedia Foundation announced the launch of a banner to support a study led by a team at the Berkman Center/Sciences Po and recruiting participants from the English Wikipedia editor community [1]. The banner was taken down within hours of its launch after concerns raised in various community forums (the Admin Noticeboard [2], the Village Pump Tech [3], various IRC channels and mailing lists such as foundation-l [4] and internal-l [5]) that the design was confusing, that it was perceived as a commercial ad and that the community approval process and privacy terms were unclear and hardly visible. Here’s what happened until the launch, what went wrong after the launch and what we are planning to do next. ==The prequel== This proposal went through a long review process, involving community forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010. The Berkman research team first approached WMF to discuss this study in January 2010. They suggested a protocol to recruit English Wikipedia contributors to participate in an early version of this study by March 2010 and posted a proposal to the Administrators’ noticeboard to get community feedback [6]. The community response at that time opposed the proposed recruitment protocol (posting individual invitation messages on user talk pages). It was suggested instead that the recruitment should be handled through a CentralNotice banner to be displayed to registered editors, but concerns were raised on how to minimize the disruption. To address these concerns, the proposal went through a full review with the Wikimedia Research Committee, that was completed in July 2011. The RCom evaluated the methods, the recruitment strategy, the language used in the survey and approved the proposal pending a final solution for the recruitment taking into account the concerns expressed by the community [7]. Based on suggestions made by community members (e.g. [8]) the research team started to work on a technical solution to selectively display a banner to a subset of registered editors
Re: [Foundation-l] Loriot and DCMA
Hi Klaus - Since it appears that this deletion is clearly labeled an OFFICE action, have you communicated with the WMF legal counsel? DCMA takedowns are not the only reason for OFFICE deletions. Risker On 11 November 2011 13:16, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: WMF has deleted some German stamps with Loriot motives although German community consensus is that they are in the Public Domain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Wohlfahrtsmarken_mit_Loriot-Motiven_sind_dem_DMCA_zum_Opfer_gefallen https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29#File:DPAG_2011_55_Herren_im_Bad.jpg (English) There is NO entry at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:DMCA If your contribution was the subject of a takedown demand under the DMCA and you believe that your contribution did not violate copyright law, you may wish to file a counter-notification. The discussion cited above gives no evidence for a formal takedown according DMCA. As German copyright expert (although not lawyer) I protest against the decision of WMF - to believe in a German counsel which has shown its incompetence several times and which has given legal advice in unclear cases against the vital interest of free content - not to search the communication with the community as soon as possible - not to make such a scandalous action of the Loriot heirs public. There is a German court decision clearly saying that the stamps are Public Domain and the legal literature ignoring that is wrong. Therefore for me it is CLEAR that the stamps are in the Public Domain and if WMF's counsel has another opinion he has to search the discussion with the community like all others. Only in the case of a formal takedown notice it is the right of WMF to overrule the community consensus. This is NO single case decision. If WMF accepts German stamps as not free this will have heavy implications. It is not reasonable to let the German community in the dark according the position Hey feel free to store German stamps on Commons and on de WP but if a rights holder contacts us we will remove them. I clearly support all users who are viewing this deletion as not acceptable overruling community consensus and the communication after the deletion as not appropriate. Dr. Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Loriot: Please read carefully what I wrote
On 11 November 2011 13:39, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: This case has to be discussed IN THE PUBLIC. As https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29#File:DPAG_2011_55_Herren_im_Bad.jpg gives not sufficient reasons for the decisions and no sufficient background there is NO need that I privately contact WMF's counsel. It's not my duty to contact him but his duty to explain a case with EMINENT implications for the German community. Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l As far as I know, General Counsel Geoff Brigham has a page on Meta. Philippe has also provided the email address to reach the entire legal team. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Loriot
On 11 November 2011 16:49, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: You didn't read my message. With all respect: PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE NO SENSITIVE ISSUES IN THIS CASE which concerns the copyright status of modern German stamps. The office action was a clear mistake and it's not relevant how often office action werde made if WMF's counsel was clearly misleaded. Therefore there is, I repeat this, NO need that I or another German wikipedian contact the counsel. WMF has the duty publicly to discuss the case! Well, given that you've been repeatedly directed to the WMF staff members who are able to answer your questions, you seem to be working awfully hard at *not* asking the people you've been directed to. Have you even made an attempt to post to Geoff Brigham's MetaWiki talk page? While I cannot speak for the manner in which Geoff would respond to you, I don't think you have grounds to complain that he is not responding to you directly and publicly if you have not contacted him directly and publicly. Here is a link to his Meta talk page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP
On 2 November 2011 21:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com wrote: While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this once? :-) Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not an image filter conspiracy thread :) To quote from the movie The Right Stuff (perhaps misquote, so sue me) The issue here isn't pussy, it's monkey. The administration and the tech folk are still treating the folks who are going to ride the rocket as not in charge, and that has to change. A fork or whatever, but this simply cannot be allowed to stand. *We* edit wikipedia. Not Sue or Erik or Jimbo, or the Board (least of all).We do it. There is another famous movie quote. Build it and they will come. Welll there is an obverse side to that coin. Tear it down, and they won't come anymore. Jussi-Ville, I'm having a really hard time following your logic here. My understanding is that this is targeted at sharing knowledge with the people who can't afford to pay ridiculous data access fees and who *aren't coming now* because it is too expensive or too slow for them to make use of our projects. In what way is opposing the sharing of knowledge in line with the core objectives of every single project? Has not every single edit ever made to any of the projects been done under licenses that permit anyone or any organization (including the WMF) to copy, distribute, transmit...[or]... adapt [1] the content, provided that appropriate attribution is given and the resulting information is released under the same license? Risker/Anne [1] Excerpt from text of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (full text in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License) A version of the applicable license is linked to from every page in every WMF project. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool
On 26 October 2011 06:04, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote: Hey guys So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC ..snip...The session will be held in #wikimedia-office at 19:00 GMT/UTC, and I hope to see a lot of you there :). I realise that sometimes it is a challenge to arrange these Office Hours in a more spread out way; however, of the last five sessions (including this one), four of them have occurred at a time that severely limits participation from North and South American editors, as they come during our business day. This particular topic area is very much of interest to our N/S American editors who work on projects where the Article Feedback Tool is in use and has raised concerns, and ones where the new and improved version will be placed. I'd very much urge trying to spread out the time of Office Hours generally. I'd also like to suggest consideration be given to doing a double office hour session for topic areas that impact projects globally and involve editors from just about every time zone. Reading IRC minutes is not the same as being involved in the discussion. Thanks! Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Canadia Supreme Court Finds in Favour of Hyperlinker
Today, the Canadian Supreme Court found that an online writer who used external hyperlinks could not be held liable for the contents of the hyperlinked materials: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362--supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-internet-freedom?bn=1 Justice Rosalie Abella, who wrote the majority opinion, said, “Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered ‘published’ by the hyperlinker.”[1] It is reassuring to see the Canadian Court supporting this particular principle, one on which the Wikimedia projects are heavily dependent. It does, however, identify a boundary (repeating defamatory content) that bears some watching. Risker [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hyperlinking-doesnt-constitute-defamation-supreme-court-rules/article2206256/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 10 October 2011 16:47, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the system to all its delight. Please come up with something more realistic. Please elaborate (ideally without hurling insults). Gladly. If you sense a little frustration on my part, it is purely because most of us have been round this track more than a few times... Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being hijacked by downstream users. So from a perspective of not helping censorship by own actions, it is a strict no-go. I am being succint and to the point here. The fact that some people have been offered this quite clear explanation, and still keep acting as if they had not even heard it... without hurling any insults, their behaviour does make some of us frustrated. So does the current categorization system lend itself to being hijacked by downstream users? Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not have the same effect. I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 10 October 2011 18:08, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote: Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not have the same effect. I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed. Been discussed to death, raised from the dead, chopped up with a chainsaw,reresurrected, taken out with a sawn-off-shotgun, stood back up missing an arm... they just keep on coming! The current category system is not as vulnerable to being abused because it is not a prejudicial labelling system. In straight english: Computers are sort of stupid. They can't infer intent. A. If we want a computer program to offer something to be blocked, it needs a label that essentially says This Is Something People Might Want To Block B. A computer program cannot really safely determine what to do with licking or exposed breasts (especially as are different norms on what is appropriate in different parts of the world) Our current category system conforms to B. We would need some sort of mapping to A to make a category based filter work. Social problem: Mapping B to A is evil, according to ALA. ;-) sincerely, Kim Bruning Patient: Doctor Doctor, it hurts when I map B to A! Doctor: So Don't Do That Then Oh please, Kim; this is nonsense. Commercially available software is, even right now, blocking certain content areas by category and/or keywords for (at minimum) Commons and English Wikipedia; I've seen it in operation. So there's no reason to believe that the current category system, which we use legitimately for content-finding, is not amenable to use in exactly the same way that an image-filter-specific category would be. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote: I've seen it in operation. Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually directly use categories from commons? Are you sure? Yes, I have seen net-nanny software directly block entire Commons categories. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 10 October 2011 20:03, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote: No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on any system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are not publicly accessible. They have prevented access to all articles I tested within a given category on English Wikipedia and all images within a given category that I tested on Commons. That sounds like it works on the basis of keywords, perhaps. How thoroughly have you tested it, when did you do this test? Can we check? Can it block those images from the given category on commons, if viewed on the actual pages they are used for on wikipedia? And will it also block images from the subcategory - if used on wikipedia? I might investigate or even buy this software (if not exceptionally expensive) and test it extensively if this is the case. sincerely, Kim Bruning I cannot answer your questions, Kim, as these are generally systems in which I do not have longterm access; and those that I do have longterm access, I'm not going to risk my accounts for your experiments. I cannot think of a legitimate reason why I would be investing a large amount of time checking all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]] (or the equivalent Commons category) on those accounts, for example. You may be in a different situation. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the word Sex, which would reject every page and image in [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word sex. That is not a category based filter. If you believe it was a category based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software in order to verify your assertion. I don't have the funniest notion what the software is; these are systems on which I have no control and no rights above first level user, and they are not open systems. It may be that they are using keywords, but many obvious keywords are legitimately used as category names on our projects. Therefore, it makes no difference whether they're using keywords that match our categories, or the categories themselves: the effect is exactly the same. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 9 October 2011 12:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me when the next Board election will be? Nathan Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will be appointed in 2012. The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to nominate three candidates. Again, the board has certain rights to refuse the candidates with the most votes. The remainder of the board members are selected for their expertise, with the exception of the Founder seat which is approved on a regular basis. The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to the community or the chapters or to any other external agent. This is all available for review in the Bylaws.[1] Risker/Anne [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#Section_3._Selection. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40: Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will be appointed in 2012. The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to nominate three candidates. Again, the board has certain rights to refuse the candidates with the most votes. The remainder of the board members are selected for their expertise, with the exception of the Founder seat which is approved on a regular basis. The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to the community or the chapters or to any other external agent. I find this response a bit odd. ;-) It almost seems to assume that the community (or Nathan?) is likely wanting to elect someone the WMF couldn't accept, or that responsibility to the community is a bad thing, while we used to say only that there's no imperative mandate and that chapters-elected trustees are not chapters representatives, etc. I'm not sure what you find odd about it, but it is factual. The key point is that board members must work on behalf of the Foundation, and must not act as representatives of a particular constituency, and those constituencies cannot direct board members elected/nominated by them to act in certain ways. I agree that it is not entirely relevant to this discussion: the board's statement on controversial content was issued in May, and all three community-nominated board members who signed off on that statement were re-elected subsequent to that. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman wikitan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern. Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google translate? I am unclear what the new law says that is leading Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian Wikipedia. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On 4 October 2011 10:12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Reading the discussion (with Google-glasses), it looks like there are about 40 people in favor of the lock (with only several opposed), and the lock is planned for sine die or until a decision to unlock it is taken by the community. It's not clear that the discussion has reached an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc. One has to wonder how the community will be able to discuss unlocking the project if the project is locked. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Rather than try to respond to a specific post in this fast moving thread, my belief is that the WMF is likely trying to work directly with members of the Italian Wikipedia community primarily right now rather than keeping up with mailing lists. While I do look forward to seeing some communication on this issue, that community needs to be the focus. (As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.) Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: snip Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against. Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski o@t-online.de wrote: Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker: The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. Weird. I've only seen a post where Milos has been crunching some numbers. Don't you think you're assuming a bit too much to make such implications? My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their geographic location rather than their input. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: snip Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against. Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. Risker ___ I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question of what do women think about the image filter? What about women in different regions? is of some relevance - it's useful to try to understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why he said tactically re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt. I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog post was about two basic issues: *How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and *The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational information and media to the entire world. There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of, and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters. As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances. Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or eliminated. Wikipedia is not censored is not a reason to include or exclude information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces. That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed. Our job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information, however, is a matter of editorial judgment. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures. I'm sorry to tell you, though, that you will not get this answer from this mailing list. Only a tiny number of Wiki[mp]edians subscribe to this list, even fewer women subscribe to it, fewer still post to it, and your message incorrectly characterized the views of at least two American women based on their own posts to this list. Thus, it becomes a disincentive to share opinions when those opinions are first mischaracterized and secondly broken down by reported sex and geographic origin. Simply put, whatever happens on this list is statistically insignificant and cannot, even in the tiniest way, be considered representative of the views of either Wiki[mp]edians or our readership, let alone extrapolated to determine the opinions of a non-homogeneous country with 300 million residents. I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient information for any of us to assume that those individual views are representative of any particular demographic. The sample size is far too small. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient information for any of us to assume that those individual views are representative of any particular demographic. The sample size is far too small. Thus, I asked for positions of female editors of German Wikipedia. And, generally, to try to find the answer available data. Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active participants in this mailing list? Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote: Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28 On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote: This post appears mostly to be the tone argument: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored. Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems quite valid. Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. And so on. Andreas I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate Illustration for the subject. snip No, I think he understood it just fine. I have seen similar arguments in several places on various projects: not just that it could be acceptable, but that there is a duty to include such information in articles that overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other factors. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On 8 September 2011 01:57, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 September 2011 17:32, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Every version of Mozilla has included the Dont load images option. And it is simple to find. John, you made me laugh out loud when I read that - it reminded me of how incredibly non-techie I was before I started hanging out with Wikimedians, because a few years ago it never would have occurred to me that it was possible. As it was, It took me 15 minutes to find the two ways to do that (without looking at the help page that I doubt anyone would find without knowing a lot about the project). http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+disable+images (our help page turns up on the first page of results, for me) I do think David Gerard's suggestion is probably both (a) quite workable and (b) more likely to create user satisfaction, especially if it's a straightforward toggle. We should be helping users use their existing tools better, not creating new tools to do the same job, less well. people on dialup need to learn how to use these tools because it isnt just Wikipedia which is slow to load - the entire internet is full of sites which are a nightmare on dialup. If we want to improve Wikipedia for dialup, our developer resources are better spent on a skin which emits less HTML, selects smaller or less images, etc. John, we can't fix the whole internet. We can't insist that users do a google search to find pages in our own project (you've made an argument for improving our search function further). And we shouldn't treat people who don't want to muck about in their browser software (oh geez, now what have I done!) as too uneducated to be shown courtesy. Yes, the internet is full of sites that are a pain on dialup. But we can be a leader in giving people the opportunity to find out about Leonardo da Vinci without using up their bandwidth. We already know that changing editorial practices is like herding cats, and getting people to use smaller images when clearly a large one is appropriate to the page, or using fewer to illustrate articles, is a particularly challenging one. The use of overlinking and massive templates at the bottom of articles is also problematic, as are the ever-increasing expectations for referencing. A toggle to turn off images, right over there on the top of the toolbox, is only one small step in the constant evolution of ways that can make our projects an easier place to be for those who aren't as well-informed or clever as the average Wikimedian. Education is best digested when it is actively sought; I'd rather feed the reader an article on a topic he wants to know about than insist that he learn how to reprogram his browser before he can open the article he wants without having enough time to take a shower before the page finishes loading. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On 7 September 2011 10:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: snip The closest we could come to a neutral filtering system is an easily accessible on/off switch for images. Interestingly, this proposal has come up many times completely separate to the issue of image filtering. Many users, particularly those on dial-up systems or those whose billing is related to the amount of data accessed have asked for this ability for some time. For them it is a performance/cost issue, and has nothing to do with filtering. Given some of the arguments that have been made in opposition to filtering, particularly those that seem to focus on the content should be displayed in the way the authors intended, I'm concerned there would be equally significant opposition to even this simple matter. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating
On 7 September 2011 21:14, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: [...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their children they can't use Wikipedia [...] It's not the first time I see this meme expressed. Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents a significant number of parents over several cultural groups, and that (b) there is serious indication that if (a) is true those same parents are going to change their stance given the proposed implementation of the image filter? Because, unless we got some serious statistical backing for those assertions, they are just smoke blowing our of asses to the sound of but think of the children! Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG? - Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media. There are literally tens of thousands of pages on the English Wikipedia that would fall afoul of rating schemes of multiple countries, although they would vary significantly from country to country. I recall some time ago, I bumped into an article that had a video of the bodies of dead (facially recognizable) soldiers being looted. I'm pretty sure that one would have crossed the PG (or equivalent) in many countries. Sexually explicit pages cross the threshold in many countries as well, obviously, and there are some that would be rated as Adults only in many countries too. But we already know that, so I wonder why you ask this? Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On 7 September 2011 17:32, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 September 2011 17:18, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 September 2011 10:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: snip The closest we could come to a neutral filtering system is an easily accessible on/off switch for images. Interestingly, this proposal has come up many times completely separate to the issue of image filtering. Many users, particularly those on dial-up systems or those whose billing is related to the amount of data accessed have asked for this ability for some time. For them it is a performance/cost issue, and has nothing to do with filtering. Given some of the arguments that have been made in opposition to filtering, particularly those that seem to focus on the content should be displayed in the way the authors intended, I'm concerned there would be equally significant opposition to even this simple matter. Turning off images should be, and can be, done by the user-agent. We have a help page describing how to do this. That would be the page with the great big this page is out of date notice at the top, giving instructions that are not valid for the most common user agents (Firefox 2?). Every version of Mozilla has included the Dont load images option. And it is simple to find. John, you made me laugh out loud when I read that - it reminded me of how incredibly non-techie I was before I started hanging out with Wikimedians, because a few years ago it never would have occurred to me that it was possible. As it was, It took me 15 minutes to find the two ways to do that (without looking at the help page that I doubt anyone would find without knowing a lot about the project). I do think David Gerard's suggestion is probably both (a) quite workable and (b) more likely to create user satisfaction, especially if it's a straightforward toggle. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On 5 September 2011 11:02, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 05/09/2011 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: As to why no-one is distributing a filtered version of Wikipedia, I think that falls more under the general heading of where are the major third-party reusers that anyone actually cares about? - the non-existence of a commercial filtered version is less of a surprise when we consider the dearth of commercial packaged versions at all... You'd think a safe version would be a valuable service that many would be willing to pay for, given the hordes of people beating down our doors demanding just that... oh, wait. They already exist, and have for years. We call them mirrors. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
On 3 September 2011 19:22, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 09/03/11 4:06 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: Just a bit of different perspective: I could make a list of chapters, besides WM RS, which would be happy to get a representative from WMF (but from any other bigger chapter, as well) in their Board, if that means that the representative would really do something. For a number of chapters it is not a matter of having influence from any other entity, but a matter of getting one person capable to help chapter. So it's not really a question of having someone on their Board. And it's not a question of a person who must be from the WMF. A person helping from another chapter would do just as well, and that would not raise apprehensions about being under a head office thumb. The helper would not need to be mentioned in any by-laws. His task would be to help the chapter for a predetermined amount of with whatever tasks were agreed to between the two chapters. The donor chapter could even continue to pay his salary. if he were an employee. I suspect what you're talking about is an ex-officio member of the board, with no voting privileges. That makes a bit more sense to me. On the whole, I think Anthere's post explaining the conflict of interest issues that arise from having WMF staff/board members sitting as Chapter board members as well is quite accurate. (I'm not as sure as she about the WMF's intentions toward chapters; I have a feeling they've not really figured out their own vision of chapters, which makes things more confusing for everyone.) Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 10:44, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: 2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote: It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes. I have heard this argument too often now, so let me finally reply to it. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement to not allowing good faith chapters to fundraise. Because that is basically what is happening - a chapter that has the best with the movement in mind, will not try to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation by fundraising on its own. I have never heard of any international organization which had two organizations (national and world wide) fundraising at the same time in the same country. And why would not-online fundraising suddenly be OK if the main reasons of the WMF are transparency and not following the WMF strategy closely enough? Why would it be so different? Because at the same time, chapters would still be asking donors to support those goals Wikipedia stands for: the sum of all knowledge available for every human being. The message doesn't change, the accountability doesn't suddenly improve and the performed activities with the money don't change. The only thing that is different is that it is less visible and that the fundraising agreement doesn't forbid it. For the record, one of the examples used as an international charitable organization with multiple local chapters, Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders)...does indeed run both international and national fundraising drives at the same time. My inbox contains recent requests for donations from both my national chapter and the international organization, dated within days of each other. And I have a choice as to whether to donate to the international campaign or the national one, although I do so at different websites, and only get a tax credit for donations made to the local chapter. This 40-year-old internationally recognized organization has only 25 recognized national chapters, which have needed to meet rigorous standards to obtain and retain their status. It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 11:09, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Hi Risker, The chapter agreement should be public. There is a version of it at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation , which might be slightly out of sync with a version on an internal wiki; most chapters sign the exact same agreement ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements). The fundraising agreement that the WMF now seems to back out of should also be public: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_agreement. The proposed grant agreement is currently on an internal wiki and not public. Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to current agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 19:35, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: .. Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to current agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example. It is also pretty hard for people actively involved in the administration of chapters to know what is going on, and why. snip Thanks for that comment, John. While I probably don't entirely share your own view (or that of many others) about the entire chapter/fundraising issue, I can certainly understand and sympathise with all of the people from chapters who are trying to figure out their next steps here. It must feel a little like walking on quicksand. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
chapters that are currently in early development. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last time around. In the real world, charities determine what their objectives are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific dollar objective in mind. In the real world, charities also make sure that their target is not completely out of proportion with the fundraising potential they have in a given geography. What's the point of thinking up fantastic programmes for a budget of a million dollars if you know that the maximum your country will ever give to your cause is 20 000 dollars. So I find the exercise to be interesting. I think we are saying the same thing, in different ways. Charities/chapters should not be fundraising for targets they cannot realistically meet, either by developing program plans that will cost considerably more than they are likely to be able to support financially, or by raising more money than they can justify by their ability to provide programs. It is two faces of the same coin. What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with the equivalent of half a million US dollars? And was that target established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on the back of an envelope? It's certainly not the way that any other charity I know of develops its targets. Now, last year was the first time this process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things; however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened at the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone done any advance planning for next year. It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's donors in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite adamant that they are *not* the WMF. Did anyone run a fundraising campaign last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local organization versus the global one? (Donate here to support Wikimedia Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here to support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt available) Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed, or what the chapter's objectives and activities were? In other words, were donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for? I suppose your statement is backed up by some research? As in, you have data to support the fact that a significant percentage of last year's donor believed they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office? As a matter of fact, I suppose you can also back up the fact that donors even understand what the Foundation (or the chapters for that matter) are and what they do? I'd be happy to see this data, it's cruelly missing. It's been 10 months since last I saw the landing pages for various chapters (and would have no idea where to find them now), and I saw them before the fundraiser went live so some changes may have been made after I saw them. Bearing that in mind, one of the concerns that came to my mind even then was that many of them did not make it explicitly clear that XX percent of the donation was going to and independent local chapter. There was also a significant lack of fiduciary information about the chapter entities to which their donation was going - such as links to audited financial statements, operational or strategic plans, current programs, expansion plans, budgets, identities of the chapter board members, and so on. All of this information was available in some form or other from the non-chapter landing pages. Indeed, I never could figure out from any of the chapter landing pages what percentage of the donation stayed local and what percentage would be submitted to the WMF. In other words, I *knew* that these were chapter landing pages, I knew the money was going to chapters, and even still it wasn't immediately obvious to me that the money was going to a separate entity (the chapter) and not just a local branch directly controlled by the WMF - or to the global WMF fundraising pool. I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever before. But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance planning in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia community, and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as well
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimediaindia-l] 2011 H2 - Steward Elections
Perhaps a little explanation as to why we are having a second steward election this calendar year might be helpful; it's not entirely clear to me, at least. As well, will currently seated stewards be undergoing review? Risker/Anne On 22 August 2011 00:41, Benjamin Chen cnchenmi...@gmail.com wrote: Are we going to have global site notice up for this election soon? Since we are having the image filter central notice at the moment.. Best, [[User:Bencmq]] / Benjamin Chen On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Tanvir Rahman wikitan...@gmail.com wrote: FYI. :-) -- Forwarded message -- From: Jyothis E jyothi...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:33 Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] 2011 H2 - Steward Elections To: Malayalam wiki project mailing list wikim...@lists.wikimedia.org, mlwikilibrari...@googlegroups.com, wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org All, Please note that the Steward elections for the second half of 2011 is beginning in Meta Wiki. If you wish to nominate yourself as a candidate, please read the guidelines carefully. It is mandatory that you should be 18 or older and have a three months of admin experience to be a candidate. Candidate should also be willing to identify themselves to the foundation as well. Please read the Guidelines page listed below for all requirements. Candidate submissions are open from 21 August 2011, 00:00 until 7 September 2011, 23:59 (UTC). Questions to the candidates can be submitted until 14 September 2011, 23:59 (UTC). The voting will begin on 15 September 2011, 00:00 and end 6 October 2011, 23:59 (UTC). Candidates must meet the criteria and obtain at least 30 votes in favor with an 80% support ratio. You are welcome to help with translations as well. More information on the links below: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2011-2 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2011-2/Guidelines Kindly reach out to me or one of the election committee members should you have any questions. Regards, Jyothis. ___ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l -- Tanvir Rahman Wikitanvir on Wikimedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum
On 20 August 2011 14:31, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to make tiny procedural point before things go any further, if I may, please don't let this stop the philosphical distractions going in any way (though perhaps better suited in their own thread). Since there is going to be such a short interval between the vote concluding, and the results being announced, is it the presumption that no due diligence needs to be adhered to with regards to vote fraud, and sock-puppets are explicitly allowed to vote? No. Each individual may vote once, using a single eligible account of his or her choice. I do not understand why you would think that violating election rules would be okay if there was the possibility one wouldn't get caught. Isn't that like walking out of a store without paying for the television because the clerk just happened to step away from the till for a few minutes? If it requires more time to do due diligence, then it will take more time. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum
On 20 August 2011 22:48, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote concluding and the results being announced? First, I disagree that it's ridiculously unrealistic. Vote checking has already started and will continue throughout the polling. Second, hindsight is 20/20. I'll tell you that it's a balancing act... we've gotten it right a few times and we've gotten it wrong a few times. It's been years since this type of all-projects election was held for anything but a Board of Trustees election, and so, yeah, mistakes will be made. But let's just wait and see on the timeframe, shall we? No doubt an extension will have to happen, but what's the harm? If we take a couple extra days to announce the results, who has been harmed? ' Months, not extra days, dude. Jussi, I have no idea why you think it would take months to carry out due diligence on these votes, or months to release the results. Perhaps you should explain why you think that. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Referendum 2011 mailout — issues
On 20 August 2011 23:38, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: I hold 7 votes, at the end: one real account, five bots and one of my auxiliary accounts -- not used for years -- have got right to vote. I have one more account, but I don't think that I made 10 edits with that one. The rules for editors:[1] You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). To qualify, this one account must: - not be blocked on more than one project; and - not be blocked on the project you are voting from; and - not be a bot http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bot; and - have made at least 10 edits before 1 August 2011 across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login) You get one vote, Milos. Your bots do not get to vote. Your auxiliary account does not get to vote, unless you forego voting on your main account. Risker/Anne [1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/en#Rules ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns
The next question becomesand what does this trusted person do with the information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much point; if it is retained, I'd like to see how this meets local and EU privacy policies. I agree pretty much entirely with David Gerard on this one; I'm not seeing an upside to this practice, and a huge number of downsides. Strongly encourage the project to revisit this. Risker/Anne On 10 July 2011 13:08, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail a notarized statement that I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so I may edit as Bar? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so easily forged. BirgitteSB On Jul 10, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Medewerker can mean staff - but literally it just means cooperator, and it is generally used for anyone editing the encyclopedia on a regular basis. (ie. active community members). It is however open for misinterpretation. Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be, that people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked forever without a way of getting unblocked. Still not taking any stand or opinion, Lodewijk 2011/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com On 10 July 2011 10:55, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote: Is mentioned in a offiical policy on the Dutch Wikipedia here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpopmisbruik The relevant paragraph appears to be http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule The Google translation is In order to be unblocked, the person behind the corresponding IP address is a letter (paper) to a community trust staff. Does it actually mean staff in Dutch? Does it imply *in any way* that the person to contact is officially sanctioned to deal with private information? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blokkeringsmeldingen#Ontsnappingsclausule The Google translation for this one appears to quite definitely be trying to imply official status. Does it carry such implications in the original Dutch? It doesn't matter if Huib was blocked for good reason. This still looks very like a privacy disaster in the making, and the Foundation, and particularly the staff relating to privacy concerns, need to look into it very closely. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns
On 10 July 2011 16:28, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The next question becomesand what does this trusted person do with the information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much point; if it is retained, I'd like to see how this meets local and EU privacy policies. Well I don't know about your EU but in ours we have a method called collecting private data by agreement for a given purpose and it is completely legal. If I say to you that you have to provide this and that private data if you want me to do this and that and I will collect your private data for that very purpose, and you agree, then I am legally allowed to collect and handle it. You have the right to disagree and leave the agreement and not to use the given service. I'm thinking more of whether or not it is retained, and precisely how it is retained. Is it kept in a locked box somewhere? Sitting on someone's desk? Accessible to other individuals? Of course, there's no guarantee that the personal information submitted actually belongs to the person whose account is blocked, either. It seems an awfully complex process fraught with multiple opportunities for problems. Frankly, I cannot understand why the presentation of personal identification documents changes anything with respect to the manner in which this user will interact with the community. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] en.wp HACKED?
Perhaps not. One of the weaknesses of flagged revisions is that it enshrines vandalism. The required review of all changes and redaction of personal attacks only adds more steps to the resolution of each episode of vandalism. Semi-protection would be more likely to halt inappropriate edits to templates without unnecessarily adding to anyone's workload. Risker/Anne Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -Original Message- From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:04:32 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] en.wp HACKED? This is a great idea. SJ On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: On 06/19/2011 07:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the template namespace would help the cause. Certainly most edits to templates Indeed. I believe that one of the main points against flagged revisions is that they will put off new users because their edits won't be immediately visible, however very few new users start by editing templates. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] en.wp HACKED?
On 19 June 2011 09:41, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: Yeah, that does happen sometimes. The cause is usually template vandalism, where a vandal adds some content to an unprotected template that's used in a few pages. This makes it difficult for new users to find out what happened and usually freaks people out. :-) Which template did this happen on? I didn't notice any on-wiki discussions pointing to it. I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see, Sage. Template vandalism is not particularly rare (in fact it's so common there's a standardized OTRS response to complaints about it), and is essentially treated like any other kind of significant vandalism: revert, block, ignore. There's a bit more to addressing this particular series, but my instinct is that the English Wikipedia community has learned from past experiences that having major public discussions about how to address certain types of vandals and vandalism can often turn out to be a primer in how to vandalize (or be seen by the vandal as proof of his success), so such discussions are not very common anymore. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
I think that one of the biggest barriers to the implementation and enforcement of global bans are past history, a lack of understanding of the forced interdependence of projects through the SUL process, and difficulties in finding ways to share information about the seriousness of problems created by certain users (which often include non-public information). I have heard from users active in projects other than English Wikipedia that the Enwp practice of suggesting that their community-banned editors spend six months contributing to another project has had negative effects on other projects. I can certainly see why this has created a sense that other projects were being used as a dumping ground for people deemed unsuitable for the Enwp community. This philosophy is slowly abating on our project (in recent years, the closest an Arbitration Committee statement has come is saying that contributions to other projects will be considered in future ban/block reviews), but it's not entirely dissipated. Sister projects should not be considered informal rehabilitation facilities for problem users. On the other hand, it probably has not really occurred to other projects that the SUL process has enabled users banned on some projects to continue to create problems without leaving a publicly visible trail of activity. These problems can range from inappropriate use of the Email this user feature to resumption of activities on the project where they've been banned because they've been allowed to create a new account name on the alternate project, with many other permutations along the way. It's often difficult to figure out who to share the background information with on various projects, because of cultural differences (for example, different rules for checkusers), and because public revelation of some of the information may repeat the harm that was caused by the banned user in the first place. I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of users who have created serious problems on either the global or the multiple-project level. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of users who have created serious problems on either the global or the multiple-project level. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? Sue, the one thing that comes to mind is that the Foundation does have the right to restrict access to private or non-public information and can decree that a specific individual is banned from any position that permits access to such information. (The data belongs to the WMF and therefore access to it can be controlled by the WMF.) It is possible that this could extend as far as use of the email this user feature for editors who have been shown to abuse it, because those non-public emails travel through the WMF servers. Again the WMF has the right to decree whether or not this is appropriate use of WMF equipment. Neither of these issues are project-specific; they are global in scope. I tend to agree with Kirill Lokshin about the ability of the WMF as a service provider to restrict access to its property in a general sense, for the very small number of individuals who have repeatedly abused their access across several projects, or more directly by affecting Wikimedians by taking wiki-disputes into other areas; my estimate would be that we're probably talking fewer than a dozen people altogether over the past 10 years who might meet this level of abuse. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue, then there seems no reason to demand a global ban. Bad stuff happened on WP with him impersonating real people, that seems to be dealt with. Unless there is anything more, the response seems kosher... Except other comments indicate this is not the extent of it. Here is the problem; the el'reg article is a load of rubbish, of little information in relation to *why this person is bad news for the whole of WMF. *My inclination on these matters is, generally, to be harsh and get rid of them. But you're making it very difficult with the vague and meaningless responses to make me, personally, come out and support such an action. No offence, but.. any of his on-wiki or within-WMF activities should be fine for public knowledge, and I fail to see why the wider majority should be asked to comment or support these actions without running over the basic details. In case my point isn't obvious *that *is why global bans are probably seeing so much resistance. Secretive shit. Yes, I am pushing hard here. But this sort of discussion should not be taken lightly; *what sort of activity requires a global ban*? Tom (p.s. the signpost link doesn't work for me - if that addresses my above issues then apologies) What the Register article doesn't go into as much is the harm that this group of sockpuppets did on English Wikipedia and in other projects. They have been used to change the outcome of multiple discussions, including deletion discussions and requests for adminship. The Runcorn (administrator) account unblocked known harmful proxies, softblocked them, and then the sockpuppets used them. He has continued to manage to persuade various administrators and other advanced privilege users on various projects that he has reformed, but because of the negative connotations associated with his former username(s), he needs a new, secret account to contribute, thus creating further sockpuppets that have the patina of protection from respected community members. He has used those new accounts to SUL to various projects and send harassing and otherwise inappropriate emails to other users. (We had to go through and block email on all of the English Wikipedia accounts we're aware of because they were originally blocked before that feature was enabled.) He has promised his protectors that he will never run for adminship, and then does so, forcing his protectors to either come clean about what his previous identities are (thus harming the reputation of the protectors) or keeping quiet (creating a time bomb for the project). We will never know what information he gained or how he used it when he had checkuser access; his deception in this area is one of the reasons that the WMF is looking at ways to retain the personal information submitted by identified users. His off-wiki activities have focused on harming the personal reputations of various enemies on Wikipedia and the other projects. As recently as the beginning of this year, he was still emailing users and insisting that this is all a terrible misunderstanding, and that the accounts really are just a group of girls who know each other and are all separate individuals. In other words, the initial harm was significant, and the deception has continued unabated to this day. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] OTRS
On 2 June 2011 16:01, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, Than we have a problem here, User Silverspoon publiced a e-mail I send to OTRS in a channel. This e-mail (http://demo.wickedway.nl/temp/SS%20temp.jpg) is a e-mail I sended to OTRS to release content. This e-mail was paste on pastebin to discuss in a public IRC channel ( http://demo.wickedway.nl/temp/ss%20temp2.jpg), Silverspoon told me he had the information from user:FreakyFries. I tried to make a complaint by Guillom, the OTRS admin and he says he doesn't give a fuck. (http://demo.wickedway.nl/temp/ss%20temp3.jpg) At this moment I believe my privacy has been abbused by linking me to a website in a private channel, I would like to see what the foundation thinks about this since the person in charge thinks its perfectly normal to publish private e-mails. Without actually reading the pastebins, it occurs to me that there are certain exemptions built into the privacy policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information Specifically, I would wonder if exemptions 3 and 6 are potentially germane to this situation. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people
On 1 June 2011 16:17, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: This week, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a resolution addressing the issue of controversial content on the projects. The Board also unanimously passed a resolution addressing images of identifiable, living people on the projects. The resolutions are posted at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people I think the more important part of this announcement is the resolution on images of identifiable people, and it is this section that requires considerably more self-examination on the part of every project that hosts or uses images. Commons has a guideline on the subject, found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people This is a starting point for the discussion. In particular, I think that the Board in its resolution is looking specifically at the uploading of images by third party editors/users who are not the subject of the image, nor its creator, nor the person who has claimed the right to it. (The most obvious example is images from Flickr, but there are many other resource sites.) This, of course, does not exempt users who upload images that they create or own. The resolution and (where applicable) guidelines do place an important onus on both the uploader and the project to ensure that personality rights have been appropriately confirmed. The resolution places this obligation on a near-equal footing to ensuring that copyright status is appropriate to the project. It may also be worth noting that the term identifiable is used. Unusual physical structures, jewelry, tattoos or other features may render the subject of an image identifiable even if the facial features are not included in the image. It should probably be emphasized that this would apply equally to projects that host fair use or other images, and is not simply an expectation on Commons. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
On 25 May 2011 09:50, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, by the way, I don't know where you look, but I somewhat missed communication about maintenance events ongoing in Google or Microsoft or Apple - you think they have none? Did you get lots of clarification why your gmail was unreachable? Did you get explanation/information why search index was outdated? Do they use site-wide sitenotices for that or what? Ummyes, actually. My Gmail produces an error code or gives me advance notice when there is scheduled maintenance, as does my hotmail (Microsoft), and Google fairly frequently explains its technical problems (though sometimes one has to look for it). Apple - I know nothing. And I'm realistic enough not to expect that level of service from Wikimedia; there's simply not the personnel to do it. I think we all appreciate, Domas, that notifying customers is not the #1 priority when our excellent team of paid and volunteer developers are fighting a pitched battle with wayward squids - all of us know getting the system working is the top priority, and anyone who's sat back and watched wikimedia-tech during a serious problem knows how incredibly diligent and focused you all are. Wiki(p)(m)edians who forget what collaborative work means should watch you folks when you're taking care of the serious business for a free lesson. It would be worthwhile, however, during a relatively quiet period to tweak the error messages (perhaps make them more generic and all purpose?). There are some useful ideas, particularly Tim's, in this thread, and it appears Thomas has volunteered to do much of the heavy lifting on it. Thanks to you and to all of the team who worked to address this situation yesterday, you did a good job. I know we don't say that nearly often enough. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 21 May 2011 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: MZMcBride, 21/05/2011 22:25: Marco Chiesa wrote: Is there any project which allows usernames such as Administrator, Bureaucrat, Oversight or Steward? Isn't that confused and probably not allowed? Or which project allows a user name for more than one person? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist prohibits those names across all Wikimedia wikis. But sysops can override the title blacklist. That is correct, which is precisely why we were able to create this account. It has been very helpful in reducing the number of on-wiki posts saying I need oversight for this diff! which was not really terribly helpful. On the other hand, it would probably only be useful for larger projects with a lot of oversight requests and also use an email notification system. Nonetheless, it's a bit off-topic. As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs. In the past few years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen literally thousands of BLPs that easily meet the current notability standards, but have been turned into coatracks to highlight a particular belief of the subject (whether or not that is why they are notable), to self-aggrandize, to attach all the negative information that can be found about the subject regardless of its comparative triviality. Worse yet are the ones that are userfied instead of deleted, or never even made it into article space; they often come up as top google hits for the subject, because Google crawls user space. (They don't seem to crawl user talk or article talk, or if they do, they do not include them in their results.) Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 20 May 2011 12:09, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: A footballer protected by one of the British superinjunctions is suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for Wikipedia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-privacy Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has worked. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. That's not actually legal. -- geni What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information? What Geni means is that if he (as a UK resident) identified something that violated the superinjunction, emailing Oversight would be sufficient for him to violate the superinjunection. I am not certain that is 100% correct, if he does not name any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at risk. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
On 16 May 2011 12:54, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to question something: Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because here people can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the people who can actually change the policy are the commons editors. So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki? Well, I suppose I would be happy to talk about it on the wikiif I could find the place where it's being discussed. Not at the village pump, the talk page for picture of the day, the talk page of the image, the administrator noticeboard, the Main Page talk page... Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Plea for candidates: WMF Movement Communications Manager
On 15 April 2011 15:17, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if not as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º one). If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine) that really don't care _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484 It doesn't say that, Béria. It seems to say that, ideally, the successful applicant will not have English as a first language, i.e. will not be from most of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and several more. That rules out a huge number of Wikimedians (most, in fact) just because of their birthplace and culture. The ad says: Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker) Not quite sure where you're coming from there. Today I've interacted with about 60 professional colleagues. They're all Canadians but I'd venture to guess that at least a third would consider themselves native speakers of at least one other language. Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Plea for candidates: WMF Movement Communications Manager
On 15 April 2011 17:46, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English. It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: Ideally your native language is not Urdu. In my area 30% of people are perfectly capable of communicating at a native level in two languages, and others have already shown that an equivalent percentage in California itself can do that too. In Europe, the ratio is probably even higher, as it is in several other countries. Place of birth is no longer the sole determining factor in what languages people communicate in proficiently, and it hasn't been for at least a generation. The WMF is an international organization, and having employees who are effective in a range of languages is not just a laudable goal, it is crucial to the Foundation's success; that alone is enough to give it an exemption from the Americans first rule. And the Urdu line bears no resemblance to anything that is actually in the advertisement. I tend to agree with Will that it's very unlikely the WMF will find someone who meets every one of their ideal candidate criteria; however, finding someone who fits all criteria of a position description at this level is almost impossible for any organization. I'll be saddened but not surprised when the successful candidate is announced and someone immediately pipes up but s/he doesn't meet criterion 32(b)(ii)! How could you have hired this person!! They're unqualified!! Risker ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Plea for candidates: WMF Movement Communications Manager
On 15 April 2011 18:36, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 April 2011 23:24, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), Ideally your native language is not Urdu. The problem is that that's not what the ad says. As Risker pointed out, you're going way into left field here. * What is the question you are asking? * What is the moral point you are attempting to make? * What is your recommended course of action? * Should you have been consulted? The point seems to me to be an obvious one. The point of substituting Urdu for English is to make the analogy more precise, to bring out the structure of the sentence. Given that we're discussing precision of language, I'm sorry I'm not able to be precise enough to communicate it properly. But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing? I'm sorry that you're feeling beleaguered, Sarah; that is not my intention. However, I think you're really reading something into the position requirements that just isn't there. Let's take the direct quotes as they relate to language expectations: Exceptional English writing is critical for this role, including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of audiences. Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker) Experience leading projects in a multi-lingual environment, including collaboration with volunteers for whom English is not a first language [1] Nowhere in there is there exclusionary wording about any particular language. In fact, the only language that appears to be critically required is English, and that requires an exceptional skill level, whereas any other language requires only a demonstrated ability. The prospective employer has determined that the position needs someone with high level ability in at least one other language besides English, and justifies it because the position requires leadership skills in a multi-lingual environment. I guess I'm just not getting where the labour standards concern is coming in. Risker [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Manager ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On 10 April 2011 16:05, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 13:54, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: * how do I delete an article? and its counterpart: why was my article deleted? * how do I merge/split an article? * hey, can I reference a blogpost in this article? There are formatting questions that aren't so easy to figure out either: * how do I put a footnote in an article? * how do I find and insert an infobox? In fact a lot of those issues are spelled out very clearly. See [[WP:BLOGS]] for whether you can reference a blogpost. See [[WP:INCITE]] for a quick way to add a footnote. See [[Category:Infobox templates]] for how to add an infobox. See now, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Look at that lovely alphabet soup. I bet nobody can explain why the shortcut to the page on how to add references sounds like something involving rioting in the streets. And how would a new user even have the funniest idea about categories, let alone templates? Actually, there's a huge bugaboo - all the templates that are used all over the place. Most users aren't able to write them, and we get back to the WSIWYG issues of unclear information on the editing screen when they're used. Between templates and wikitables, there are big parts of the project that turn into absolute mysteries when the user clicks Edit. Incidentally, part of the [[WP:INCITE]] page is incorrect: List defined references don't look like that in the editing screen. The deletion process does look daunting, but actually if you just clunk through the instructions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion it's pretty easy, and I say that as someone with a template phobia. Keeping in mind that I too am an experienced editor, it still took me nearly 5 minutes plus several open tabs to file an AfD the other day. I keep being told just install Huggle/Twinkle/Friendly/some other script but because I work on a wide range of browsers, these cause problems for me. Having said that, the main issue was time and number of steps, not legibility or physical difficulty. We work on a complex website that caters to lots of different needs and skill levels, so there's a limit to how simple these processes can be made. Agreed, but the things that we expect even a beginning editor to do should be as simple and easily found as possible. Citing references, in particular, is buried in bits and pieces all over the place. A newbie who manages to find [[WP:INCITE]] and follows its instructions is still just as likely to be trouted because they didn't use the right style of references for the article (Sorry, Wikiproject:XXX requires that only Harvard style references be used in articles under our aegis. Please resubmit your edit, properly formatted.) We can do better. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
Getting back on topic, the board's resolution says: We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by: * Treating new editors with patience, kindness, and respect; being aware of the challenges facing new editors, and reaching out to them; and encouraging others to do the same; * Improving communication on the projects; simplifying policy and instructions; and working with colleagues to improve and make friendlier policies and practices regarding templates, warnings, and deletion; * Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility; * Increasing community awareness of these issues and supporting outreach efforts of individuals, groups and Chapters; * Working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation; and encouraging best practices and community leaders; and * Working with colleagues to develop practices to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers. This is an area where every project is going to have its own take on things, and we can probably learn from each other's experience; however, what information there is seems to be housed on the strategy wiki, which many users avoid because it's not part of the WMF matrix (i.e., SUL doesn't apply). With that in mind, I wonder if there can be a place where projects discuss what has helped and not helped, located somewhere on Meta. Coming from the behemoth English Wikipedia, where I make most of my contributions, I know that communication becomes increasingly difficult as size increases, and that there is a tendency to standardize messages and processes to the point that they begin to immobilize sensible action. I'm particularly interested in policy simplification; I know our project has far, far too many complex and even contradictory policies, guidelines, and miscellaneous pages that result in alphabet soup messages that even experienced users find almost impenetrable. I pity the newbie who gets a welcome message that leads them to the Manual of Style, for example. Featured article writers discuss what it really means on a regular basis, so there's little hope an inexperienced editor will be able to follow the contradictions in it. A few thoughts to bring us back where we started. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On 9 April 2011 23:39, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 April 2011 23:27, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is an area where every project is going to have its own take on things, and we can probably learn from each other's experience; however, what information there is seems to be housed on the strategy wiki, which many users avoid because it's not part of the WMF matrix (i.e., SUL doesn't apply). With that in mind, I wonder if there can be a place where projects discuss what has helped and not helped, located somewhere on Meta. Since when does SUL not apply on strategywiki? As far as I know, since always, Casey. One must log in separately there; going from another WMF project, one's login doesn't follow. One of the main reasons for the creation of SUL was so users could go from WMF project to project without having to log in again; partly for ease of use, but also because there are an awful lot of editors who don't want to link their usernames to their IP addresses, even accidentally. Especially now that most experienced users take SUL for granted, it's a barrier to participation when a link to a WMF project seeking broad participation requires editors to log in again, and hope that someone else hasn't created an account with their username first. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
On 14 March 2011 09:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 March 2011 13:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Having a single person would not work, as people would assume that a single person may have their own personal biases affecting their judgment. An elected committee might work, and I do think we should look at empowering such a committee to remove the right to edit BLPs from editors who repeatedly abuse it, and at creating the technical means to do so. An elected committee to deal with editor disputes ... we could call it the Arbitration Committee! Except the arbcom feels it has lost so much community confidence it doesn't even feel it has the power to enforce long-standing fundamental policies: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-January/108319.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-January/108321.html (The context there being that they feel they can't maintain the rule no personal attacks even to the admins.) Are you suggesting something like a second, parallel arbcom if the first has finally stalled? David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, and your personal crusade to turn the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee into a personal attacks police force. That was never the intended scope of the committee, and it remains outside of its scope. We're currently working through a desysop process in which one of the elements in evidence is the administrator's alleged incivility: I'm not seeing a huge groundswell of support from you or any other former arbitrators for the Arbitration Committee having tackled this issue, and I don't see any historical evidence of committees prior to 2009 having addressed this issue either, including the time that you were on the committee. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
On 14 March 2011 11:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 March 2011 15:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, The link to your precise words is there. It's what you actually said. Or are you claiming those links are not to your words? Nowhere in my words did I say anything that in any way implies that either I or the Arbitration Committee as a whole feels it has lost so much community confidence it doesn't even feel it has the power to enforce long-standing fundamental policies. The Arbitration Committee is not a police force, it was never intended to be, and there was never any interest on the part of the community for it to become so. There was no loss of community confidence in Arbcom's policing functions, because those functions never existed. But for the second time now, you are derailing a discussion on one topic (in this case, whether there is a benefit in breaking up large projects, and in the prior case, how to attract and retain female editors) so that you can focus on your preferred topic of berating a committee for not doing what it's not intended to do. I cannot speak for others, but I find that to be quite inconsiderate to the other editors participating in the respective threads. Some might even consider ituncivil. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
On 14 March 2011 11:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 March 2011 15:21, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: But for the second time now, you are derailing a discussion on one topic (in this case, whether there is a benefit in breaking up large projects, and in the prior case, how to attract and retain female editors) so that you can focus on your preferred topic of berating a committee for not doing what it's not intended to do. I cannot speak for others, but I find that to be quite inconsiderate to the other editors participating in the respective threads. Some might even consider ituncivil. I think what you mean here is that you don't like being called on what you said two months ago If you no longer believe what you wrote, then say so, rather than attempting to divert attention from your words. I will note also that if curious readers go to the links I gave and follow the threads, they will see many others, not just me, also incredulous at your claims of ArbCom powerlessness to *enforce basic policies*. Claiming it's all me is (as I noted in that thread) you attempting to shoot the messenger. Again. The ArbCom feels it doesn't have much workable power on en:wp. Is a parallel construction that does the answer? I do believe what I wrote, David, but I also believe you have deliberately and completely mischaracterized what I wrote for your own purposes, which appears to be publicly berating the Committee that you are no longer in a position to directly berate or manipulate privately. The Arbitration Committee is not a policing body, it never was even under your tenure as an arbitrator, and complaining that it is not is like complaining that one's snowmobile keeps getting bogged down in the sand. Clearcut personal attacks on the English Wikipedia are addressed on a daily basis by the hundreds of administrators and other community members with actions ranging from quiet, personal reminders to redactions and warnings through to blocks of varying lengths. As you well know, the Arbitration Committee is a dispute resolution body of last resort tasked primarily to binding decisions about behavioural issues, which normally only enters the scene after other attempts to resolve the situation have been unsuccessful. It's not a front-line policing body, it's not a governing body, and it's not a court. Not quite two years ago, the Arbitration Committee attempted to promote the idea of a similar dispute resolution body to address content disputes, and that concept was soundly derided by the community. I do not see any reason to believe that a front-line policing body tasked to addressing personal attacks is any more likely to be acceptable to the community, particularly as they are already routinely addressed on a regular basis. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] help on usability initiative sandbox wiki
On 21 February 2011 00:22, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/sandbox.4/Special:Contributions/213.5.64.179 I don't know why SUL doens't work there I can't find the proper database suffix on http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/all.dblist Therefore I can't grant me sysop bit there to do somethign So... to anyone who actually have rights,that's been going on for a day And to anyonw who actually can do it.. pelase enable SUL on that wiki Unfortunately, the absence of SUL means that global IP blocks also do not have effect. This IP has been globally blocked for 11 months already. This would support MZMcBride's proposal that these specific purpose wikis be rolled into Meta. At minimum, stewards should be able to address issues on these WMF wikis, and there should be a convenient way to notify the appropriate parties of how to address these issues. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT
While I sympathize that people think this issue should be discussed here, it is a direct question to the Wikimedia Foundation from a government official, and it needs to be responded to by the WMF. While the post wound up here (and for that, I will look directly at the WMF for not having a really obvious email address for this type of correspondence), it is clear that it was not intended for discussion by a mailing list full of people who have no knowledge of the answer and are not in a position to provide an authoritative response. Perhaps someone might want to start a thread, separate to this and with the appropriate subject line, about accessibility generally speaking, but this isn't that thread. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 19 November 2010 18:39, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Several posts about disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees past and present of the WMF Noein, I believe you will find the answers you seek in the latest 503(c) filing that the WMF has published. The WMF met the legislated requirements for reporting of salaries of certain individuals as well as the overall payroll. I'm not personally going to go looking for that document, but it's on the WMF website and I'm pretty sure someone reading this can provide you with a direct link. I don't recall who was on that list, other than Sue Gardner. I'm also not going to guess what the reporting requirements are for the US government without the documents in front of me, but I'll note that other jurisdictions require either disclosure of the individual salaries of X number of the highest paid employees or, in some cases, of each employee earning over Y amount. I've seen a fair number of these sorts of fiduciary declarations made under various local laws for non-profits and charities, and none of them require the public disclosure of each individual employee's salary. I hope you will agree that the reporting made under the applicable government legislation and regulation should probably be the place where the personal privacy/public information line should be drawn, because it is consistent across the entire non-profit sector. So...could someone please add a link to the latest filing? Thanks. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 19 November 2010 19:24, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/19/2010 4:17:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, swatjes...@gmail.com writes: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Form 990 for the past fiscal year is not posted there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf The section on salaries begins on Page 7. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
On 18 November 2010 10:42, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Any one signed up yet? http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135 I could find anything wrong in their code of ethics http://www.wikipediaexperts.com/codeofethics.html -- Amir E. Aharoni Neither do I, which bodes problems for the business. They hire you to break Wikipedia rules, not follow them. The question remains: is paid editing which does conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines acceptable, even welcome? My teeth grate when I think that some people are getting paid to do what so many of us do simply for the joy of sharing. Having said that, I can certainly understand why some article subjects have tired of depending on our rather inefficient methods of ensuring that articles on notable subjects are accurate, unbiased, well-sourced and relatively complete. I have increasing difficulty rationalizing the deprecation of paid editing when a goodly number of what are assumed to be paid-for articles conform more closely to our policies and guidelines than what volunteer editors have created - or never got around to creating, for that matter. (I'll note this holds true for more than just English Wikipedia, as I have heard reports that there's significant bias on other Wikipedias as well.) Anyone who's tried to rebalance an article that gives undue weight to negative issues, or to remove salacious trivia about a BLP subject, knows how incredibly frustrating it can be to bring articles into line with policy. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A question for American Wikimedians
On 18 November 2010 13:44, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 17:31, Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:African_American_Wikipedians
146 who use template {{User afr-amer}} on user pages. i don't know who is
active in wp
After looking into the number of American, Polish and Serbian
Wikipedians, I thought that the numbers are interesting. However,
those numbers mean nothing:
* 3,561 are categorizing themselves as American Wikipedians [1];
population 300M+, English is native
* 1,779 as Wikipedians in California [7][8]; population: 36M, English is
native
* 1,450 as Australian Wikipedians[4]; population 22M, English is native
* 921 as British Wikipedians [10]; population 62M, English is native
* 689 as French Wikipedians [12]; population 65M, English is not native
* 616 as English Wikipedians [11]; population 51M, English is native
* 561 as Polish Wikipedians [3]; population 38M, English is not native
* 146 as African American Wikipedians; population 38M, English is native.
* 101 as Wikipedians in San Francisco [9]; population 3/4M, English is
native
* 68 as German Wikipedians [5][6]; population 81M, English is not native
* 24 as Serbian Wikipedians [2]; population 7M, English is not native
snip
Actually, none of these statistics are relevant, because the overwhelming
majority of Wikipedians do not use userboxes to describe their nationality,
age, sex, or race.
While I'm sure that Wikipedia's editorship is not particularly reflective of
the world at large, using userboxes as a metric to determine representation
of various groups is not particularly helpful. Many very involved users
don't include userboxes in their userspace (myself included), or don't use
the userboxes that involve sex, race, age or nationality. It strikes me that
I see probably 50 language-skill-related userboxes for every userbox that
confirms geographic location or sex.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
On 18 November 2010 18:33, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5 ? Is that bad? The problem with paid editing is when it violates content guidelines, such as NPOV. Someone paid to improve the area of linguistics in general? (This has happened.) Fine by me. Someone paid by (say) a museum to write articles on the contents of their collection? Could risk NPOV, but the idea is probably a net win. And the photos! Someone paid by a company to monitor their article for negative information and edit it accordingly? Could violate NPOV. The very proper way to do this is to openly introduce yourself as a PR person on the talk page, supply information as appropriate and never touch the article text itself; this can be problematic for you if there's little actual interest in the article, though, and so little third-party editor traffic. Someone paid by a person to keep rubbish out of their BLP? Trickier. In a perfect spherical Wikipedia of uniform density in a vacuum, they shouldn't go near the article on them. In practice, BLPs are our biggest problems, for reasons I needn't elaborate on. Usually if they contact i...@wikimedia.org with a BLP issue it gets an experienced volunteer on the case, and the BLP Noticeboard is an excellent and effective way to get experienced attention to an article. Paid editing is, of course, not one thing. I'll repeat what I said on enwp's Administrator's noticeboard here for a different audience: We are extraordinarily ineffective at providing neutral, well-written, relatively complete and well-referenced articles about businesses and individuals - even as of this writing we have tens of thousands of unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs - and equally bad at maintaining and updating them. Given this remarkable inefficiency, and the fact that a Wikipedia article is usually a top-5 google hit for most businesses and people, there's plenty of good reason for our subjects to say enough is enough and insist on having a decent article. We've all seen the badly written BLPs and the articles about companies where the controversies section contains every complaint made in the last 10 years. We aren't doing the job ourselves, and it's unrealistic to think that we can: the article-to-active editor ratio is 1:960 right now[1], and getting higher all the time. I'm hard pressed to tell someone that they can't bring in a skilled Wikipedia editor, following our own policies and guidelines, to bring an article they're interested in up to our own stated standards. As to COI, one wonders why financial benefit seems to raise all these red flags, when undisclosed membership in various organizations, personal beliefs, and life experiences may well lead to an even greater COI. Put it on the talk page only works if (a) someone is watching the article, (b) that someone doesn't have their own perspective that they feel is more valid, (c) and someone is willing to actually edit the article. Those three conditions aren't being met nearly enough (see editor-to-article ratio above). We've created the very situation where organizations and people are no longer willing to accept that they have to put up with a bad article about themselves. And precisely why should they be prevented from improving our project? As to the Volunteer Response Team, they are a very small group of volunteers who are usually swamped with requests, and they often wind up having to negotiate with the existing interested editors to clear out BLP violations and clean up the articles to meet our own standards, sometimes having to fight tooth and nail to do so. (I should clarify that there is a large group of volunteers, but only a few who are actually responding to tickets on a regular basis, not unlike most wiki-projects.) It is challenging for subjects of articles to find their way to submit a request to have their article fixed, too. And remember that 1:960 ratio - even if every active editor on enwp made it their business to do nothing but maintenance and improvement of existing articles, we couldn't keep up with the workload. Risker/Anne [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
-- Forwarded message -- From: wjhon...@aol.com Date: 18 November 2010 18:51 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age To: risker...@gmail.com In a message dated 11/18/2010 3:50:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, risker...@gmail.com writes: We are extraordinarily ineffective at providing neutral, well-written, relatively complete and well-referenced articles about businesses and individuals - even as of this writing we have tens of thousands of unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs - and equally bad at maintaining and updating them. I find that mixing to be confusing. I don't think it's useful to talk about living people and businesses together in the same section. Or are you claiming that BLP applies to living businesses as well I am deliberately including both of these groups because (a) they are the target audience for the WikipediaExperts group discussed in this thread and (b) they are the two groups who most frequently complain about poor quality articles and errors when they are the subject of an article. While I don't equate biographical articles with those involving businesses, a poor quality article is still a poor quality article, and I don't see why we should consider it less serious just because it's about a business and not a person. Risker/Anne Note: I believe you intended to send this to the entire list, WJhonson; if I am incorrect, please accept my apologies. R ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...
On 31 October 2010 21:07, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 10/31/2010 4:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not specify--and almost none specified in the past. That doesn't excuse us from stating it when it is specified. Standards change, and we change with them. Actually, I don't see what the manufacturer paying for a study has to do with anything. At least in North America, and I am fairly certain in other Western countries, new drugs will not be approved by the regulatory agencies *unless* they have undergone extensive study, both clinical and non-clinical, and which *must* be paid for by the manufacturer, and then subjected to peer review. The only exceptions of which I am aware are for vaccines and certain orphan drugs. Most facilities that conduct clinical trials of drugs insist on up-front payment of all costs so that precious health care dollars are not spent on these studies, which often require additional testing that would not ordinarily be carried out (more blood tests, medical imaging, other studies, for example). All clinical trials in all accredited healthcare facilities in North America are cleared through one or more Research Ethics Boards as well. So, saying that the manufacturer paid for a study insinuates that they have done something to affect the outcome of the study, whereas it is actually a requirement for them to pay for these studies in order to have the drugs considered for approval. It is the equivalent of automobile manufacturers having to pay to have their cars tested by various safety organizations. I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On 26 October 2010 11:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 October 2010 14:23, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less what office software the Foundation uses. I suppose the paranoid conspiracy theory of a Google takeover fueled by illicit access to WMF data doesn't strike me as remotely realistic. Google's greatest weakness is in the privacy sector. Anyone remember when they turned on Buzz and suddenly there was all kinds of personal information made available because they linked people's multiple accounts? Well, the same thing holds for all their other applications. One might think that people operating within the WMF, and in the higher levels of the chapters, are likely to have publicly linked their real life names with their wiki-identities, but that is not always the case; there are definitely chapter-level people who have not done so. Maintaining that separation is very difficult and needs to be checked on a regular basis, since Google changes their algorithm periodically. Using Google Apps may have the unintentional side effect of deterring valuable contributors from participating in certain activities. Certainly, oversighters on English Wikipedia have had to deal with the fallout of personal information being unintentionally revealed by editors who were unaware of this situation with Google. When we are providing information on how to address perceived privacy violations, we include a recommendation to those who use Gmail to review all of their Google-related accounts and ensure that they remove all links. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On 20 October 2010 15:59, Muhammad Yahia shipmas...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory. Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws? http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..09General_Powers . http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..09General_Powers . -- Ummm. The board has 10 members, of whom 3 are selected by the community at large, and 2 are selected from the tiny segment of the community who act as representatives of chapters. The remainder of the current 10 seats, including the Founder seat, are filled by the selection of the board itself. The board defines both community and chapter. I'm not sure that the board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that. Risker/Anne [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia shipmas...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The board defines both community and chapter. I'm not sure that the board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that. Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters. I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board majority. Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to revoke their representation. Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise meet the definition of community member, but it is widely acknowledged that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the definition of community member) are members of chapters. I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)
snipping changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away from the original subject of moderation As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :) I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next, will be better. That's something we all want to see. I've looked around both the WMF wiki and Meta, and can't actually find any documentation of the process by which the chapters elected their two representatives. Does anyone have a link to where I might be able to read it? Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation -- to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder. snip rest of message Well, that would sound logicalexcept that the majority of chapters correspond pretty well with the largest projects, and they are geographically based, not project-based or language-based. That argument would make more sense for a Wikiquote chapter (or, heaven forbid, a Wikiversity one) if one is concerned about smaller projects. I'd disagree, as well, about the difficulty of getting name recognition, because there have always been non-English members on the Board, and some consider relatively small projects their home wiki. It also doesn't deal well with the intersection of geographic areas, such as the current discussion on Kosovo/Serbia. What happens if a bunch of Scottish editors decide they want their own chapter - does Wikimedia-UK prevent that from happening? What if the Scottish editors want to focus on Gaelic-language projects? Right now, the US only has one chapter, WM-NYC. What about if the Boston, Washington, Chicago, and Nashville groups all decide to proceed? Will they all have the same voting power as, say, WM-DE, our oldest and (I believe) largest chapter? What about situations where a dozen or so people get together and decide to do the chapter thing for a geographic region/country, without actively seeking input from the majority of Wikimedians from their region? Once the name is incorporated, it's something of a done deal, whether or not the Board grants them chapter-hood. Please don't misunderstand me, I agree that chapters should exist, and those who can demonstrate active focus on the work of various WMF projects and the goals of the WMF itself are worthy of support in both time and, yes, money. Support, thoughnot giving them the ability to decide 40% of the make-up of community representation to the board. Phoebe, on a personal note, your election to a chapter seat on the board has reassured me to some extent; having seen your contributions over several years, I know your focus is on the community as a whole, and I cannot imagine you changing your focus. (I don't know Arne's work well enough to comment, but I extend the same good faith to him.) Now...would someone please explain internal-L to us? Thanks. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote: Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, thus our recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly. I respect what you are saying here, very much. But I think the right approach is always release early, release often. There is no need to rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are available, because there is no particular ship date with marketing, etc. Jimmy, here's where you're wrong. The first version was marketed as the solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be publicly edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we had 40 hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every reviewer. (The first problem was easily anticipated by just about every administrator on the site, and the second one by anyone who'd already seen what had happened with other very large articles.) This product has to be sold to admins to get them to use it; they saw the first version and all of its significant problems and aren't very interested. And until there is a product that passes their smell test, they still won't be interested. So installing an upgrade that hasn't resolved ALL of the significant issues is not going to interest the consumers. The advantage of a coordinated effort of a new trial with an upgraded release that has addressed all of the significant issues *and* has been well-tested on the test wiki is that it can be used to market the tool. It doesn't matter whether or not it works well if the people in the position to use the tool cannot be persuaded it is worthy of their attention. Take a look at the stats, Jimmy: Six administrators were responsible for entering 80% of the articles into the first trial, and another 12 responsible for the next 17%. Most administrators were not interested the first time around. It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear that the software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the project does or thinks, and that any further trial is not going to change that fact. I think that's very very far from true. I think that everything the Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100% universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled permanently, it has to achieve consensus. Consensus is not a hold one vote and give up if you don't make it process, but rather an iterative give-and-take. If I believed that the current version was the best that the Foundation could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as soon as is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push for major expansion of the use of semi-protection. I would hate to do that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution than semi-protection, striking a better balance. My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion that we will have PC in use in the longterm. It has to improve a lot before that can happen. The early signs, though, are that it was popular. I'm really curious to know what metric you're using to determine that it was popular. The *idea* is popular with a significant segment of the community, which is where much of the support in the two polls came from; but the *tool* itself wasn't very popular with many editors. And the concept of administrator-granted reviewer permissions went over like a lead balloon with a pretty big segment of the community. Put the upgrades on the test wiki. Recruit a pile of editors (not just administrators) to really put it through its paces and drive it hard, both those who are technically savvy and those whose strength is content. These editors are your potential change agents; if they're convinced it's working satisfactorily and that major issues have been resolved, they will spread the word on-wiki. Sticking poorly tested software upgrades onto the #7 website, and expecting people to be enthusiastic, is remarkably optimistic. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: snip Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues. And seeing people that I have lots of respect for in hot debate (both sides) concerns me... seems tricky to find the right balance and solution for moving forward. [maybe setting rights to bureaucrats or some higher level for now? Allowing only more narrow testing maybe in non-article space or something? Until we can decide what/how/when to move forward with next trial...just throwing ideas out] Anyway, I would like to be more informed and try testing in some test space (is there a test wiki for this?) and some summary of the key issues that I can see? The test wiki is here: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (MZMcBride seems to be the most responsive local bureaucrat, if you want to have admin permissions there.) The current list of bugzillas being worked on is here (cribbed from RobLa's post) We're currently tracking the list of items we intend to complete in Bugzilla. You can see the latest list here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25293 Many of the items in the list are things we're looking for feedback on: Bug 25295 - Improve reviewer experience when multiple simultaneous users review Pending Changes https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25295 Bug 25296 - History style cleanup - investigate possible fixes and detail the fixes https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25296 Bug 25298 - Figure out what (if any) new Pending Changes links there should be in the side bar https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25298 Bug 25299 - Make pending revision status clearer when viewing page https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25299 Bug 25300 - Better names for special pages in Pending Changes configuration https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25300 Bug 25301 - Firm up the list of minor UI improvements for the November 2010 Pending Changes release https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25301 Also cribbed from RobLa's message: Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus after the deployment of an interim release of Pending Changes in November 2010, which is currently under development. The roadmap for this deployment is described here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap On looking at the bugzillas, I note that many of the more serious issues identified in the Roadmap are not addressed. I will leave it to RobLa to explain that rationale. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Differences between projects with common versus highly diverse cultural backgrounds (was Re: Pending Changes)
On 29 September 2010 23:32, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP have remained stable: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm The stats on that page are pretty confusing, Andreas. Could you say here what the relative figures are? According to the tables, the number of en:WP editors with 100 edits/month stood at 5,151 in April 2007, and was down to 3,868 in August 2010. de:WP had 1,027 in April 2007, and 1,075 in August 2010. You raise an interesting point, Andreas. I am not persuaded that pending changes/flagged revisions have anything to do with the editor retention rate at the de:WP. However, I think you may be right that the considerably more homogeneous editor population, as well as the commonality in cultural background, was instrumental in the ability of the project to jointly make such a cultural shift. Indeed, the number of de:WP editors with 100 edits/month has remained very stable since January 2006. (The number of en:WP editors was essentially the same in January 2006 as at present, but hit its peak in April 2007. Let's not cherry pick the data too much, okay?) As an aside for those interested in the historical perspective, the massive increase in the number of editors on en:WP coincides with a massive influx of vandalism, and over a thousand editors did almost nothing *but* revert or otherwise address vandalism. As better and more effective tools have been developed to address that problem - Huggle, Twinkle, Friendly, the edit filters, reverting bots, semi-protection, etc - the number of editors needed to manage vandalism has diminished dramatically. In other words, that 1300-editor difference may largely be accounted for because those whose only skill was vandal-fighting have moved on. That's not to say there is no vandalism on en:WP today; there's still plenty of it. Observing from afar, it has often struck me that when almost all members of an editorial community come from a common cultural background and geographic area, there is a synergy that isn't found on projects where the community is much more diverse. This is best illustrated in the large scale on German Wikipedia, and some other European projects, where the community is visibly more cohesive. In the smaller scale, certain projects with shared cultural/geographic background on English Wikipedia, such as Wikiproject Australia, are more accomplished at developing and meeting shared objectives. These groups, whether large projects or small pockets within a larger project, seem to operate in accordance with their local cultural norms; in other words, they don't have to find common cultural ground before they can move on to a discussion of a proposal. It's my belief that the common cultural background of the de:WP editorial community has been one of the keystones of its success in being able to implement large-scale and project-wide changes, flagged revisions being the most obvious. That common cultural background or focal geographic area simply does not exist for the English Wikipedia; we're probably one of the few projects where the same expression can be viewed as friendly, somewhat rude and downright offensive at the same time, depending on whether the reader is Australian, British or American (not to mention those who have learned English as a second language, which also makes up a significant part of our editorship). Each project also has its own culture, but I confess that most of my knowledge of the culture of other projects is anecdotal rather than observational, so I won't venture to try to compare them. When faced with dramatic increases in vandalism, en:WP created tools that are largely developed by individuals and utilized by other individuals (with the exception of semi-protection); de:WP developed a single unified community response. The remarkably high quality of the tools used on en:WP means that any new systemic tool has to meet a very high threshold for it to be considered acceptable for wide-scale use. Perhaps that is the key difference between these two community types: one places more emphasis on making cohesive group decisions, while the other more strongly encourages a range of solutions. I don't have any answers, just observations. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
Rob, without wanting to take any wind out of your sails, please don't start the next trial so soon. The analysis from the first trial is nowhere near finished, the community has just started to consider criteria for a new trial, and following the very abnormal majority rules poll, there needs to be a lot of goodwill rebuilt in the community for the second trial to have any chance of success. Unless almost every one of the identified defects is rectified before the second trial begins, the repeat will be doomed to failure. It is better that you and the other developers take your time and do it right, and that you ensure that non-technically oriented users have fully tested the new prototype, before you bring it online. Analysis tools should already be set up to produce data on an ongoing basis, with people specifically tasked to provide factual analysis throughout the second trial. As well, there absolutely must be a clearcut set of criteria for the second trial, and a guaranteed, no questions asked, cut-off date, complete with the bot already programmed to automatically switch articles over to semi-protection on the cut-off date. A more appropriate target date is 15 January 2011 for the initiation of the second trial. I realise that you were just the bearer of the news that the first trial wasn't going to end as promised, four days after your predecessor promised faithfully that there was 60-day cutoff for that trial. This time, I think, the community needs to hear it from either Danese Cooper or Erik Moeller to believe it; this about-face has truly shaken the community's trust in the WMF hierarchy. Alternately, if we're going to be required to keep this software regardless of community consensus, it's better for the WMF to just say so. At this point, there is no reason at all for the English Wikipedia community to believe that our consensus process will be respected in deciding whether or not this software will be deployed on our project, particularly as there was a 10% drop in support over the two weeks between the first closing poll and the second one. Of course, having it deployed doesn't mean it will actually be used: there are 30% fewer articles on pending changes now than there were at its peak, and we never did get past 1600 articles in the first trial because very few administrators felt the cost/benefit ratio was acceptable. Risker/Anne On 28 September 2010 13:24, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, As many of you know, the results of the poll to keep Pending Changes on through a short development cycle were approved for interim usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus after the deployment of an interim release of Pending Changes in November 2010, which is currently under development. The roadmap for this deployment is described here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap An update on the date: we'd previously scheduled this for November 9. However, because that week is the same week as the start of the fundraiser (and accompanying futzing with the site) we'd like to move the date one week later, to November 16. Aaron Schulz is advising us as the author of the vast majority of the code, having mostly implemented the reject button. Chad Horohoe and Priyanka Dhanda are working on some of the short term development items, and Brandon Harris is advising us on how we can make this feature mesh with our long term usability strategy. We're currently tracking the list of items we intend to complete in Bugzilla. You can see the latest list here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25293 Many of the items in the list are things we're looking for feedback on: Bug 25295 - Improve reviewer experience when multiple simultaneous users review Pending Changes https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25295 Bug 25296 - History style cleanup - investigate possible fixes and detail the fixes https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25296 Bug 25298 - Figure out what (if any) new Pending Changes links there should be in the side bar https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25298 Bug 25299 - Make pending revision status clearer when viewing page https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25299 Bug 25300 - Better names for special pages in Pending Changes configuration https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25300 Bug 25301 - Firm up the list of minor UI improvements for the November 2010 Pending Changes release https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25301 Please provide your input in Bugzilla if you're comfortable with that; otherwise, please remark on the feedback page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback Thanks! Rob ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
Erik - Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in whether or not this tool is deployed on our project. Just a quick reminder of the words of William Pietri, who was the lead developer of this project until the day after the first trial took place: This is, as the community requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that, unless the community clearly requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off. Assuming that the trial starts on time, it will also end on time.[1] Well, that obviously didn't happen, and now we know why. If William did not have the authority to make that statement, it was your place to have corrected him forthwith. How unfortunate that you have placed a respected developer in this position. Risker/Anne [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=pending+changes On 28 September 2010 16:15, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Risker, we've consistently communicated that we'll iteratively update the Pending Changes codebase with fixes to address known issues, as documented on: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap#November_2010_Release This is the assumption on which hundreds of people voted in the enwiki poll that just took place, where this date was explicitly referenced. We're going to do our best to meet that deployment date. How and under what conditions Pending Changes is used is up to the enwiki community. All we're doing is leaving the feature in place: the community can decide to defer its continued usage, to narrow it, to broaden it, to restrict it in the scope of a trial, or to discontinue it. We're going to base our resource allocation for future development as much as possible on the emerging consensus in the enwiki community, and we'll try to support that continuing process with data as much as possible. It's evident that these discussions are still very much in flux. See more at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap#Current_Situation -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct suggestion that we'd be stuck with it. The only reason the trial was approved in the first place was with the condition that if there was not a consensus to keep it turned on, it would be deactivated. If the community had known that going in to the first trial, I rather doubt any more than a handful of administrators and editors would have participated. You will also note that in the two weeks between those two polls, support to *continue the trial* (not keep it on indefinitely) went from 65% to 59% - a drop of 10% support in only two weeks. A very significant part of that drop in support was due to the fact that the WMF had reneged on its word to respect the consensus in the first place. I am really sorry, Erik, that you and your team don't see that this position is really seriously causing harm to the potential success of the pending changes project. Many of us have already bailed out this project on multiple occasions, starting from before the trial even started (when it was discovered that nobody had tested reviewer status because that status wasn't even available on the test wiki), because we took the WMF at its word. Don't be too surprised if a fair number of long-term, very committed editors vote with their feet. Oh, and contrary to popular belief, they're a lot harder to replace than they used to be. Your stats should tell you that. Risker/Anne On 28 September 2010 16:39, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com: Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in whether or not this tool is deployed on our project. There have been two massive polls in the English Wikipedia already on Pending Changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage In both these polls, strong majorities _opposed_ disabling the feature, which is why we haven't turned it off. All we're doing is keeping the software running and making fixes we know need to be made. The process for the English Wikipedia community to determine what it wants to do with this technology, if anything, continues. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
Ah, so it's not going to be the Sue Gardner office hours, it's going to be the Pending Changes office hours. Well, I suppose that makes sense. One very large part of the disconnect, I will note, is that a very significant proportion of the editors who voted to stop the trial on the second poll are the people who were actually involved in the trial, either as reviewers, administrators, or editors who regularly watched articles that were involved in the trial. A near majority of the editors who supported continuation and expansion were not involved in the trial in any significant way. ALL of them were told they were voting for another trial, with the tool left on in the interim, not for permanent installation. And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for continuing dropped 10% in two weeks. You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys. Risker/Anne Hi Risker, I think Erik has already covered a lot of ground in this thread, but additionally, I'll point out that many of us were already planning to be present talk about Pending Changes at the IRC office hour that Philippe announced below, so that would seem a great time to cover the disconnect here. Rob -- Forwarded message -- From: Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Date: Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:02 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Office hours with Sue Gardner To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org, English Wikipedia wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org, wikibook...@lists.wikimedia.org, Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversit...@lists.wikimedia.org, wikiquot...@lists.wikimedia.org, wiktionar...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi all, Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be having office hours this Thursday (September 30) at 23:00 UTC (16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office. If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi. Type a nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and #wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join. Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning, which you can click to accept. Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other relevant email lists you happen to be on. Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: We would be better off with more people working seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature addresses, plus whatever issues there may be with the feature itself, rather than having a debating duel about the significance of a set of polling statistics. It's like having politicians decide how to govern entirely based on opinion polls. This is really a much better point than I made. Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, thus our recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly. It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear that the software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the project does or thinks, and that any further trial is not going to change that fact. I don't often write to this list, and I realise that I sound fairly negative in this thread. The fact of the matter is that I personally entered more articles into the first trial than any other administrator (20% of all articles involved), that I actively and strongly encouraged other administrators to do so as well, that I pushed hard to ensure that the largest number of editors possible received reviewer permissions, and I was one of the few people who trialed the version on the test wiki in the two weeks before it went live, finding a significant number of problems (some of which were addressed in advance of the release). I was also the person who made sure that the WMF spokesperson with respect to the trial was in agreement with the prior stated position of the community, and that the feature would be turned off if there was not clear and unambiguous support for it at the end of the trial, just to make sure we were all on the same page. So, yes...right now I (and several other administrators who were very active in this trial) are very disturbed at what has happened here. We felt there was a clear criterion for continued use of the tool, which was worthy of our collective time, energy and powers of persuasion. With that in mind, it's almost impossible to consider developing a second trial, since it doesn't seem like it will matter what criteria for continued use the project determines. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
