Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
I feel compelled to express my agreement with MZMcBride. I find his questioning pertinent. I wish the quality of content were at the core of the WMF. I feel disappointed by the direction it is choosing, and by the elusiveness of Samuel Klein whose wisdom I used to respect greatly. What happened, Samuel? Le 24/03/2012 12:52, MZMcBride a écrit : Samuel Klein wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Experiments are acceptable... sometimes. MZM, I didn't expect you to become the voice of conservatism! I cannot agree with your premise that experiments are somehow 'optional' or new. Experimentation is the lifeblood of any project build around being bold and low barriers to participation. We should simply ensure that boldness can be reverted, with fast feedback loops, and that experiments are just that, not drastic changes all at once. You seem to continue to ignore the cost of experimentation. When you unleash a classroom full of people on Wikipedia who start messing up articles and performing other actions that need to be reverted, is it Wikimedia Foundation staff who will be cleaning up the mess? It becomes a whole different issue when it's not random people messing up articles, but instead it's Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored contributors. You're far too smart to not realize this already; why are you ignoring or side-stepping these and other costs of experimentation? Wikimedia's stated mission is about producing free, high-quality educational content. It's funny, you've said this three times so far this thread :-) But if you read the mission again, I think you'll find you are mistaken. Wikimedia's mission is to *empower and engage people* to develop content. There's nothing about quality, unless you assume that an empowered and engaged society will produce high quality materials. (As it turns out, in practice if not in theory, we do.) Imagine a world in which there's a global movement with only mediocre content to show for it. That should go on a bumper sticker. If the Wikimedia Foundation is allowed to add movement jargon, I think I'm entitled to say that the goal is to make something high-quality. Fair's fair. Our goal is global engagement of creators; and providing infrastructure to empower their work. This sounds great. Is that what's actually happening? Providing infrastructure that empowers people is fantastic. Build better software and other tools that allow people to create beautiful and creative and interesting content. What you're saying nearly anyone on this list would have difficulty disagreeing with (which is, I believe, partially why you're saying it). But snap back to reality: what's happening right now is a hawkeyed focus on a boost of the number of contributors. Increasing participation for statistics' sake. And the associated infrastructure (tool development, staff allocation, etc.) is equally focused on this goal. And this doesn't even get into the issue of sister projects (or any project other than the English Wikipedia, really), which have received no support. At some point this jargon about the movement came along and there's a huge focus on building the movement. See above; this isn't new. The word movement is not new. Its prevalence is. I do support those who focus on the quality of our existing content. But other priorities -- from expanding content scope and formats, to expanding the editing community -- also deserve support. For me and for the people that Wikimedia serves (its readers), it's never been about the community. I'm reminded of this quote from Risker's user page on the English Wikipedia: Our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct. Your suggestion that there is something more important than the content simply seems wrong to me. The content is what people come for. The content is what people return for. The content is king. As iridescent once said, without content, Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people. Obviously _a_ focus on the human component is important. Bots aren't writing articles or writing dictionary definitions or taking and uploading images (yet!), but content has to be _the_ focus. The primary focus cannot simply be adding more people to the pile to build a movement. We are not trying to Occupy Wikipedia; we are trying to build something of educational value for the future. The idea has always been that even if the movement disappeared (and with it the Wikimedia Foundation), the content would remain. It has to be treated with respect and be given due deference in resource allocation and in the goals that the Wikimedia Foundation makes a priority. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Letter Feb 2012
Le 09/02/2012 17:01, Emmanuel Engelhart a écrit : On 02/09/2012 09:11 AM, Ting Chen wrote: * The board is sharpening the criteria for payment processing. Payment processing is not a natural path to growth for a chapter; and payment processing will likely be an exception -- most chapters will not do so. Without any financial autonomy (that means the ability to raise and invest funds), a chapter can only beg for money. I do not share your vision of the chapter's future - neither for the old nor for the young ones. That reminds me of a Selennites[1] poem : « With the raise of donations rise the questions ». Who does it belong to? Whose share is it? Mine! Mine! Same old story. There ain't such a thing as free money. You have to love it more than any cause. You have to pay with disputes and parasites. Money comes with dirty rules and characters. ___ 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
Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed the relevant docs, I'm new to this. Also, can I present myself as a candidate? Can I vote? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Growing
Interesting facts about size, growing and accelerating. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Decentralized data center Was: Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Le 23/01/2012 05:08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit : On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:13 AM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of itself? Does it sound unwordly? Not so much unwordly (sic?) as a diversionary conversational technique (if you weren't really trolling you will know you are innocent, and need feel no shame). Blue sky thinking has its times, This is not it. We are in a war-zone. War zone? Diversionary technique? Troll? I don't understand why you think I'm your ennemy. I'll ask on wikitech, anyway. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Le 22/01/2012 20:04, Mike Godwin a écrit : Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for complacency. I agree. Current times require a wikifreedom project whose objective would be to fight censorship through sharing knowledge and raising awareness. One of the main branches could be technological know-how to build radios or bypass internet censoring. Giving access to tor-hidden services like an encyclopedia or wikinews can change it ALL for censored peoples. I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for some time.) That's an important fact, but if the communities and donors are to delegate their power to a representant, it must be through a referendum amongst the 300 000 makers of Wikipedia. I think anyone who ever registered should be contacted and informed about such elections. Money is already already dangerous for a cause, political power is even more. « Beware the steward » This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be heard, if you know what you're doing. I agree. In fact, I think the power of Wikipedia and sister projects is not shown in the money, but in the huge and resourceful communities commited to them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Le 22/01/2012 20:18, Thomas Dalton a écrit : That's a good analogy. The approach often taken with studies about humanity is not to do experiments (because they can be harmful) but instead to examine things that have already happened or are happening anyway. But then you won't act until studying it all, rejecting any opportunity to take a stance in the meanwhile. That is, you make the choice of consenting what's happening without good reason. That's a choice, that's an experiment: the experiment of passivity. From a thousand years of dark ages, Les Lumières [1] have drawn one lesson : control of information flow is best fought than allowed. It is best for everyone to be the master of his or her own life. [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumi%C3%A8res_%28philosophie%29 (the english article is urgent, it's about wikipedian values) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Decentralized data center Was: Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of itself? Does it sound unwordly? It could be a good complement to the server based versions. Le 22/01/2012 20:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit : The simple option that will just blow all this talk fo lobbying away, is to migrate outside US jurisdiction entirely. It does entail some costs, and may well not be optimal, on many fronts. A medium option is to do a plan on the lines of the actions that Google has already put into force, of diversifying datacenters that have our non-fungible assets, so that for enforcement they would have to invade sovreign territory. But for a non-profit, our best line would be to say that we are making those plans, but actually want to keep the US have the PR benefit of being able to say that WMF like entities find the US best to be incorporated in. And then grin very hard, so they know we mean business. Follow up with saying the very real contingency plans can not wait on their realizing they have the wrong end of the stick, so we have to act now. So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be bullied by US jurisdiction. But we have a much more expansive plan which we tell we will eventually realize. But the legislators in the US have to understand we are doing this all so they realize what they are working on is harmful to prosperity around the globe. And if they play ball, (we won't give a cent of tribute, sorry) we will not accelerate the rate at which we realize the full international nature of the Wikimedia Foundation. That is pretty much the line of education that might be effective, without costing the Foundation a single backhander. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion? Le 22/01/2012 21:16, Mike Godwin a écrit : Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered, professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the process, usually a pretty hefty sum. Yes, you're wrong. Are those discussions and arrangements made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our voice heard? No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise you on how to be effective, but the word private is inappropriate here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this -- in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as well. You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be. You'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public. They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means to lobby in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine. Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far off either. Hugely far off, actually. To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom. If you really think that (for example) the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy (http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any surprise. (I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.) --Mike ___ 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] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Le 22/01/2012 23:30, Mike Godwin a écrit : I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that, but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are implemented on many levels, and, in my view, it is naive to suppose that mere protest, standing alone, is enough. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when countless individuals took to the streets all over the world. It was exciting, but it was also followed by decades of repressive governmental action that disillusioned many of the most hopeful and idealistic. To learn from 1968, you can't indulge the notion that mere mass protest is enough. Certainly there are plenty of people who remember Tienanmen Square who'll tell you the same thing. In this case, what do you think of Avaaz.org? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Le 22/01/2012 20:00, Thomas Dalton a écrit : On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I welcome your independent research project when you get it started. Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway. Obviously, I tend to fall on the Gandhi/Martin Luther King side of that issue -- at least I'm transparent about my biases. I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more than just monetary cost, of course.) You have to compare the cost of lobbying with the cost of not lobbying too. Censorship is the worst case against our mission (knowledge for everyone), so opposing it is a more worthy stance (less costy) than consenting it. These bills would set up a structure capable of the equivalent of the Great Firewall of China. We're not doing very good in China. That's one fifth of the planet already off-limit of our mission. There's no reason to let a country to shut off another whole part of mankind, in particular when you CAN do something. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Tor guys talking about what happens when your innocent western filter shows up in a repressive state.
Le 19/01/2012 23:10, Kim Bruning a écrit : As always I wish we could cooperate with tor more. sincerely Kim bruning Tor allow hidden services. A special service of Tor could be to serve Wikipedia's pages through its exit nodes. That would grant access to knowledge to people in censored countries. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?
I agree. We should have the balls to do the blackout and attract attention from public and medias. People should read about the bill, think about the rights they would be surrendering if the bill passes. If (when) the bill appears again, people will be ready to have an informed opinion about it, and I'm certain it will be against it. We should test it now, to be ready. Le 16/01/2012 20:19, Mike Godwin a écrit : Dan Collins writes: Hey guys, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found The House decided they're going to stop bothering with this bill for a while, so while we should continue to think about what we will do when the time comes to protest this, that time is not right now. The bill can be reconsidered just as it was left off any time before the end of this congressional session, and the Senate still has a live bill, but the fact that HR 3261 is not being considered at the moment means that even if the Senate passes their bill, the House may refuse to consider that one too. Dan, you're misreading the implications of what the story you link to says. What's actually happening is that the House sponsors hope to defuse opposition by delaying and slightly modifying SOPA. My experience as a DC lawyer for much of my career strongly suggests that there's no reason to suspend expressions of opposition to SOPA or PIPA or the general effort by content companies to change the internet as we know it. In my view, it is wholly incorrect to say that time is not right now. Anything that the legislators can interpret as a lack of resolve from the internet communities will encourage them to resubmit SOPA or its equivalent in another form. The time for protesting this is, in fact, right now. --Mike ___ 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] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?
Le 16/01/2012 23:43, Keegan Peterzell a écrit : On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Have any museums, newspapers, or other cultural or political institutions joined this effort? Is there any concern about further damage to Wikipedia's reputation and credibility as an academic resource when it behaves in the same manner as sites like Reddit and I Can Has Cheezburger? MZMcBride Who is John Galt? What will Google do exactly? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and PIPA
Le 14/01/2012 08:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter a écrit : On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki). I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects. Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the blackout - not something which add us much credibility). What about serving only one image, always the same: this is what happens when internet is censored, on a black background? Much more impact than shutting down Commons. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
