Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
No, but presenting an appearance of surprise is a bit disingenuous. P - Original Message - From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA On 31 July 2013 21:47, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Why would we expect that we weren't being targeted? Knowing what people are looking up is powerful knowledge. That doesn't make it one dot less reprehensible. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
And non-western countries probably go further if their technological capacity allows it. If you are not being spied on by somebody it is because no-one could be bothered or they havent got around to it yet, not because any law protects your privacy. P - Original Message - From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org wrote: What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any of this information. It's one thing to have suspicions and theories about it; but if the third party is constantly denying the allegations and with no recourse there's no point in getting angry. Now that we have reasonable doubt, I hesitate to call it proof, we can start making tremendous amounts of noise. ~Matt Walker I think that's just naive. Of course it was always denied until it became impossible to deny it. That's how these things work. But I have honestly assumed for many years that virtually everything transmitted over almost any electronic medium was collected and analyzed in some way. That appears to be the case, and in fact, I expected them to have gone further than they have. It seems that most of the data they collect is wiped within 3 days; that the data itself can only be analyzed under a fairly specific set of minimization rules after the approval of a senior executive in the administration, that the rules are drawn from generally accepted 4th amendment jurisprudence, etc. The cynic in me is also convinced that virtually all Western countries do the same sort of thing, if probably on a smaller scale. I would bet all the money I have that at a minimum the French, the English and the Germans maintain roughly similar intelligence gathering programs. But of course, they will deny it until it becomes impossible to deny it. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote: If you had followed that, and understood that the Minimum Viable Product included cut-and-paste, table editing, and maybe the ability to successfully and completely edit the hundred or so most edited articles out of all the millions, you wouldn't have hit the level of pushback you've encountered. You released a sub-viable product, which is what caused the storm you encountered. Minimum viable product does not mean anything and everything works perfectly just like you want right out of the box, and it definitely does not mean feature parity with an existing product (i.e. wikitext editing). The purpose is to release something that can help us gather feedback and test the concept behind the product in the real world instead of in a lab.[1] Table editing and other advanced markup is not really necessary to test the concept with the target audience, and decide whether to move forward. We all know VE didn't and doesn't edit everything in a way that's perfectly up to snuff. No one has been claiming it doesn't have warts. What the team is pushing back against is the idea that they can just turn it off and develop a great new editor in a vacuum, away from real use by a representative swath of current editors (registered and anonymous, new and old). The lack of use by a sufficiently large and representative group of editors is a big part of why the _seven months_ of original opt-in use didn't fix most issues. Erik and James have clearly admitted we can achieve our goals while moving at a slower pace than the initial rollout and making other concessions. Despite this, the attitude of some seems to be that they should be committing seppuku for daring to release something not 100% perfect according to [insert personal criteria for editing perfection here]. That's not the kind of reaction that drew me to Wikipedia back in 2006, not by a long shot. Rather, most of us find Wikipedia so rewarding because there is room to be bold in the name of helping the encyclopedia. Which is precisely what the VE team has been attempting to do. Do I really really wish editing references and tables and templates was easier when I'm writing articles in my off hours? Holy smokes yes. Is it helping us get there to be making bitter comments about how Erik or anybody else at WMF doesn't care about editors? No. Steven 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVR82uP_f6Q ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
Does the law actually require them to lie about data demands when questioned? P - Original Message - From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 7/31/2013 3:31 PM, Nathan wrote: And another thought - you know what unites most of the other companies represented by the logos in that image? Leaks have confirmed that most of them are the subject of secret orders to turn over huge amounts of raw data to the government. They are all bound to secrecy by law, so without permission none of them are permitted to describe or disclose the nature or extent of the data demands the U.S. government has made. Now if you imagine the puzzle globe on that slide implies that Wikipedia traffic is retained for intelligence analysis, it's a short hop to assume that the Wikimedia Foundation is also the subject of a blanket order transferring its server logs to the NSA. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter, yes. But mail.ru? The shift from most to all in the first paragraph may make it easy to assume the similarity is universal, but it's ignoring the full context. That kind of rhetorical shift is a favorite trick of conspiracy theorists, it's how they get you to make those short hops to unwarranted conclusions. --Michael Snow It's hardly a conspiracy theory. Given the differences between mail.ru and Wikipedia, I should think it would be clear why one might be subject to a direct demand for transferring data while the other is not. If anything, I think it's more reasonable to assume that Wikipedia (which shares many features with Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook and other social networks) has been the subject of this kind of demand than that it hasn't. No one with direct knowledge would be able to do anything other than deny it, but we can easily see why data held by Wikipedia (including partially anonymized e-mails, file uploads, talk page communication, etc.) would be of interest to intelligence agencies. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
Thanks, This answers my question. P - Original Message - From: Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: Now if you imagine the puzzle globe on that slide implies that Wikipedia traffic is retained for intelligence analysis, it's a short hop to assume that the Wikimedia Foundation is also the subject of a blanket order transferring its server logs to the NSA. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter, yes. But mail.ru? The shift from most to all in the first paragraph may make it easy to assume the similarity is universal, but it's ignoring the full context. That kind of rhetorical shift is a favorite trick of conspiracy theorists, it's how they get you to make those short hops to unwarranted conclusions. Thanks for the voice of reason, Michael. As a quick reminder here, before any conspiracy theories about orders and data retention get out of control: 1) We've flat-out denied any sort of involvement in this, and we continue to stand by that denial: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/ 2) Take with a grain of salt, of course, but our understanding (based on the few gag orders that have been made public) is that we could be forced to not confirm having received a National Security Letter, but we can't actually be forced to lie about it. In other words, if we'd received one we would not be allowed to say we've received one, but we also could not be forced to deny it - we'd always have the option to remain silent instead. 3) We understand that the rules cause some people not to trust our denial, and can't entirely blame them! That is why we've asked the government to change the rules, so that you can have more trust in us next time we issue the same denial: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparency-nsa-prism/ This is not to say that the http/https issue isn't important; like Engineering, we think progress on that issue is important. But it is important to keep we don't yet deploy https as widely as we'd like separate from there are secret orders to transfer all our logs to the NSA. Thanks- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation. Key word there being knowingly. I don't know why the NSA would sneak around in our data centres mirroring our ethernet ports if they already have almost all of our access logs by capturing unencrypted traffic as it passes through XKeyscore nodes. I think you should save the conspiracy theories until after we switch anons to HTTPS, that's when they will have an incentive. tim, and ryan, that is not 100% true. since at least 2010 we know from articles like these: * http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/packet-forensics/ * https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/researchers-reveal-likelihood-governments-fake-ssl that man-in-the middle attacks are possible with and without HTTPS at XKeyscore nodes. the basic problem is, that wikipedia contents is stored in the U.S., and the site is using certificates issued in the U.S. the same country and legislation the NSA is located. this means the certificates can be compromised and users would not (easily) notice it. the best sign against snooping internet traffic would be if wikipedia will change the hosting to a different country, and use a different countries ssl certificate. you can bet, that the perceived impact on the U.S. business will be so huge that this intolerable practice will stop, at source, at NSA. btw, ryan, you talked about firing and jailing - if you did not know that or if you knew it and ignored it, you should be fired or not work at WMF ;) it is _you_ who need to warn about the location beeing vulnerable, and it is _you_ who decide to use vulnerable digicert certificates. but you of course will not be jailed - this seems to happen to people revealing that xkeyscore exists ... rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor
Hey Kevin,
contrary to your belief (and in spite of your desire to blame me ;-),
I actually have a ton of respect for the opinions you've expressed
throughout the process, and for the level of detail and time you've
committed to it, including helping in a hands-on manner. I don't agree
with you on quite a few issues, obviously, but I've really enjoyed
reading your comments, which are always well-reasoned and on point.
:-) I hope you don't lose your patience with us, as you really are the
kind of person we enjoy working with due to your diligence and the
quality of your reports.
So, if you've personally felt that it's been disruptive for you and
caused you annoyance and frustration, I'm sorry, because I do respect
your opinion and your work as an editor.
On the subject of an appropriate MVP:
If you had followed that, and understood that the Minimum Viable Product
included cut-and-paste, table editing, and maybe the ability to successfully
and completely edit the hundred or so most edited articles out of all the
millions, you wouldn't have hit the level of pushback you've encountered.
Couple of diffs from a few minutes ago of table edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_League_Soccercurid=71802diff=566676293oldid=59395
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_True_Blood_characterscurid=23290782diff=566675268oldid=565993704
That's not just plain vanilla tables, but tables with inline CSS
specified by hand, templates inside cells, etc. No roundtripping
issues or other problems as far as I can tell.
The kind of table you want us to make work well is this type:
onlyinclude{| class=wikitable style=margin: auto; width: 100%
|-
! colspan=2 rowspan=2 style=width:3%;|Season
! rowspan=2 style=width:5%;|Episodes
! colspan=2|Originally aired
! colspan=2|DVD release
|-
(...)
| style=background:green; color:#134; text-align:center;|
| style=text-align:center; colspan=2| '''[[List of Big Time Rush
episodes#Film|Film]]'''
| style=text-align:center; colspan=2| {{Start date|2012|3|10}}
| style=text-align: center; top {{N/a}}
| style=text-align: center; top {{N/a}}
which injects this kind of template:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:N/aaction=edit
In other words, a table partially constructed out of table cell templates.
Now, I understand that you've dealt with dirty diffs resulting from
people editing pages using those templates, and I know that sucks, so
sorry about that - but it's a hard problem, and I don't think it's
reasonable to frame it as an MVP-level one. The reasonable expectation
is to fix roundtripping issues on those hairy tables as soon as
possible, and ideally avoid any kind of accidental leakage of CSS into
the UI. But as you know, some of these templates don't even map
against HTML elements, so it's not a trivial issue.
We could spend literally months trying to make
tables-constructed-out-of-templates work nicely, and it would still be
a shitty experience, and those would be months not spent on actual MVP
features. Before we sink countless person hours into
tables-constructed-out-of-templates, I think we need to step back and
see what our options are for solving that particular problem well in
the long run. Perhaps there's a type of table-template we can support
well, and gradually migrate all tables to it, but it won't be easy.
I appreciate that you created the Disable VE template which makes it
possible to shield pages that are vulnerable to dirty diffs from VE.
That was a great hack (we should have included _that_ one with the
MVP, it would have saved users a lot of pain), and should help in
cases where an immediate fix isn't feasible.
As for copy-and-paste, yes, it's pretty wonky still, and I'm sure
causes a fair bit of frustration for first-time VE users who have no
experience with wikitext. However, it is there within a VE session,
and we see very few diffs where users are causing problems due to
broken copy-and-paste. Does that not match your experience? I've just
inspected another round of 100 diffs and didn't see a single
copy-and-paste related issue. Contrary to Andreas' claim, copying
references isn't completely broken, but the bug is pretty nasty when
it hits, so we'll get it fixed soon.
As for performance, it already was a high priority before release, and
we made huge gains in server-side performance thanks to the deployment
of a completely new caching infrastructure for VisualEditor and lots
of optimizations on Parsoid (still more to come). Where we could have
done better prior to release was client-side performance -- we didn't
do sufficient profiling there, and pushed it off to later; but we've
made pretty significant improvements in the last month already to the
point that even Adam Cuerden remarked on it. :-)
I don't agree that focusing more on the pain points you name would
have reduced the level of pushback significantly. You don't mention
nowiki issues, but guess what, across the communities, aside from
performance,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor
If we are going to discuss Minimal Viable Product, then we might want
to take note of the line in the Wikipedia article that says:
The product is typically deployed to a subset of possible customers,
such as early adopters that are thought to be more forgiving, more
likely to give feedback, and able to grasp a product vision from an
early prototype or marketing information.
More than any specific deficiency in VE, I think the aggressive roll
out did the most to cause user dissatisfaction. If you want to claim
that VE is a minimal product, then it stands to reason that it
wouldn't be ready for all users. There are plenty of ways to stage a
deployment and gather feedback that are intermediate between the early
opt-in and turning it on for all users everywhere. The WMF took
nearly the most aggressive deployment path possible while the quality
of the software really didn't warrant that.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Kevin,
contrary to your belief (and in spite of your desire to blame me ;-),
I actually have a ton of respect for the opinions you've expressed
throughout the process, and for the level of detail and time you've
committed to it, including helping in a hands-on manner. I don't agree
with you on quite a few issues, obviously, but I've really enjoyed
reading your comments, which are always well-reasoned and on point.
:-) I hope you don't lose your patience with us, as you really are the
kind of person we enjoy working with due to your diligence and the
quality of your reports.
So, if you've personally felt that it's been disruptive for you and
caused you annoyance and frustration, I'm sorry, because I do respect
your opinion and your work as an editor.
On the subject of an appropriate MVP:
If you had followed that, and understood that the Minimum Viable Product
included cut-and-paste, table editing, and maybe the ability to successfully
and completely edit the hundred or so most edited articles out of all the
millions, you wouldn't have hit the level of pushback you've encountered.
Couple of diffs from a few minutes ago of table edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_League_Soccercurid=71802diff=566676293oldid=59395
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_True_Blood_characterscurid=23290782diff=566675268oldid=565993704
That's not just plain vanilla tables, but tables with inline CSS
specified by hand, templates inside cells, etc. No roundtripping
issues or other problems as far as I can tell.
The kind of table you want us to make work well is this type:
onlyinclude{| class=wikitable style=margin: auto; width: 100%
|-
! colspan=2 rowspan=2 style=width:3%;|Season
! rowspan=2 style=width:5%;|Episodes
! colspan=2|Originally aired
! colspan=2|DVD release
|-
(...)
| style=background:green; color:#134; text-align:center;|
| style=text-align:center; colspan=2| '''[[List of Big Time Rush
episodes#Film|Film]]'''
| style=text-align:center; colspan=2| {{Start date|2012|3|10}}
| style=text-align: center; top {{N/a}}
| style=text-align: center; top {{N/a}}
which injects this kind of template:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:N/aaction=edit
In other words, a table partially constructed out of table cell templates.
Now, I understand that you've dealt with dirty diffs resulting from
people editing pages using those templates, and I know that sucks, so
sorry about that - but it's a hard problem, and I don't think it's
reasonable to frame it as an MVP-level one. The reasonable expectation
is to fix roundtripping issues on those hairy tables as soon as
possible, and ideally avoid any kind of accidental leakage of CSS into
the UI. But as you know, some of these templates don't even map
against HTML elements, so it's not a trivial issue.
We could spend literally months trying to make
tables-constructed-out-of-templates work nicely, and it would still be
a shitty experience, and those would be months not spent on actual MVP
features. Before we sink countless person hours into
tables-constructed-out-of-templates, I think we need to step back and
see what our options are for solving that particular problem well in
the long run. Perhaps there's a type of table-template we can support
well, and gradually migrate all tables to it, but it won't be easy.
I appreciate that you created the Disable VE template which makes it
possible to shield pages that are vulnerable to dirty diffs from VE.
That was a great hack (we should have included _that_ one with the
MVP, it would have saved users a lot of pain), and should help in
cases where an immediate fix isn't feasible.
As for copy-and-paste, yes, it's pretty wonky still, and I'm sure
causes a fair bit of frustration for first-time VE users who have no
experience with wikitext. However, it is there within a VE session,
and we see very few diffs where users are causing problems due to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: As a quick reminder here, before any conspiracy theories about orders and data retention get out of control: 1) We've flat-out denied any sort of involvement in this, and we continue to stand by that denial: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/ 2) Take with a grain of salt, of course, but our understanding (based on the few gag orders that have been made public) is that we could be forced to not confirm having received a National Security Letter, but we can't actually be forced to lie about it. In other words, if we'd received one we would not be allowed to say we've received one, but we also could not be forced to deny it - we'd always have the option to remain silent instead. snip If we are going to chase crazy down the rabbit hole, then it may be worth noticing that the NSL gag order makes it a crime to discuss NSL demands with anyone except A) personal legal counsel, and B) persons who are directly necessary to fulfill the demand. In particular, if I (as an individual) am served with an NSL then there is no provision allowing me to tell my boss or my subordinates unless I directly need their help to satisfy the request. If someone with root access were directly served with an NSL, it isn't obvious that WMF executives would ever learn about it. This is one of the ways that NSL gag orders are ridiculous. -Robert Rohde ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
The letters must be sent to the organization rather than an individual. The idea of going to an individual employee and strongarming them may happen, but the law around NSLs is specific. The court cases to date indicate that if an individual employee got a US NSL and sued over it, the judge would likely take actions that would end the FBI agents careers. Such individual strongarming would almost certainly use threats or MICE (money, ideology, compromise, ego) enticements and no paper trail to have to testify over in court later. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:31 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: As a quick reminder here, before any conspiracy theories about orders and data retention get out of control: 1) We've flat-out denied any sort of involvement in this, and we continue to stand by that denial: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/ 2) Take with a grain of salt, of course, but our understanding (based on the few gag orders that have been made public) is that we could be forced to not confirm having received a National Security Letter, but we can't actually be forced to lie about it. In other words, if we'd received one we would not be allowed to say we've received one, but we also could not be forced to deny it - we'd always have the option to remain silent instead. snip If we are going to chase crazy down the rabbit hole, then it may be worth noticing that the NSL gag order makes it a crime to discuss NSL demands with anyone except A) personal legal counsel, and B) persons who are directly necessary to fulfill the demand. In particular, if I (as an individual) am served with an NSL then there is no provision allowing me to tell my boss or my subordinates unless I directly need their help to satisfy the request. If someone with root access were directly served with an NSL, it isn't obvious that WMF executives would ever learn about it. This is one of the ways that NSL gag orders are ridiculous. -Robert Rohde ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
It is funny (but also sad) to see how people thought that Internet privacy was respected in Western world. Almost 99% only worried about China/Iran Internet monitoring and censorship but we had here the most comprehensive spy system logging every site you read. Wake up! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Changes at the Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Team
Thanks everyone - I learned and grew a lot here thanks to all of you. Now Lisa, Megan, Sara, Katie and the whole fundraising team are going to take it up to a whole new level of efficiency and brilliance. I'm excited about my next gig -- not yet announced, but not a secret -- which is going back to Thoughtworks (where I was before WMF) to build and lead a team that will make tools for grassroots/political organizing on a pro bono basis. If you ever see a group that's got a great campaign/movement/protest on their hands who need some just-in-time tools, please let me know at zackex...@gmail.com Zack On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations about the new site Zack, and congratulations to Megan, Lisa, and Sara! Dan Rosenthal On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:38 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: I know I've been critical of Zack Exley for technical reasons over the past year, but I think very highly of him as a person. If I was recruiting colonists for an interstellar colonization mission, he would likely be in the top 100 based on his accomplishments, orientation, drive, and social skills alone. But even if he weren't, his new project is outstandingly spectacular on its own merits, and I want to urge everyone reading this in or from the U.S. to sign up and join it: http://www.fivethirtysix.org/ I predict that anyone with even a passing interest in U.S. politics who doesn't follow FiveThirtySix will first regret it, and then end up following it afterwards to prevent further such regret. Also, congratulations to Megan and Lisa! Sincerely, James Salsman ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Zack Exley Chief Revenue Officer Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation. Key word there being knowingly. I don't know why the NSA would sneak around in our data centres mirroring our ethernet ports if they already have almost all of our access logs by capturing unencrypted traffic as it passes through XKeyscore nodes. Especially not when they can get someone else to do it for them. I think you should save the conspiracy theories until after we switch anons to HTTPS, that's when they will have an incentive. And I thought Ryan Lane was talking about the future, not the past. I certainly was. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk aboutVisualEditor
This may be a stupid question, but is it possible to put a label into a
complicated template which will simply prevent VE from trying to edit it?
P
- Original Message -
From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk
aboutVisualEditor
Hey Kevin,
contrary to your belief (and in spite of your desire to blame me ;-),
I actually have a ton of respect for the opinions you've expressed
throughout the process, and for the level of detail and time you've
committed to it, including helping in a hands-on manner. I don't agree
with you on quite a few issues, obviously, but I've really enjoyed
reading your comments, which are always well-reasoned and on point.
:-) I hope you don't lose your patience with us, as you really are the
kind of person we enjoy working with due to your diligence and the
quality of your reports.
So, if you've personally felt that it's been disruptive for you and
caused you annoyance and frustration, I'm sorry, because I do respect
your opinion and your work as an editor.
On the subject of an appropriate MVP:
If you had followed that, and understood that the Minimum Viable Product
included cut-and-paste, table editing, and maybe the ability to
successfully
and completely edit the hundred or so most edited articles out of all the
millions, you wouldn't have hit the level of pushback you've encountered.
Couple of diffs from a few minutes ago of table edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_League_Soccercurid=71802diff=566676293oldid=59395
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_True_Blood_characterscurid=23290782diff=566675268oldid=565993704
That's not just plain vanilla tables, but tables with inline CSS
specified by hand, templates inside cells, etc. No roundtripping
issues or other problems as far as I can tell.
The kind of table you want us to make work well is this type:
onlyinclude{| class=wikitable style=margin: auto; width: 100%
|-
! colspan=2 rowspan=2 style=width:3%;|Season
! rowspan=2 style=width:5%;|Episodes
! colspan=2|Originally aired
! colspan=2|DVD release
|-
(...)
| style=background:green; color:#134; text-align:center;|
| style=text-align:center; colspan=2| '''[[List of Big Time Rush
episodes#Film|Film]]'''
| style=text-align:center; colspan=2| {{Start date|2012|3|10}}
| style=text-align: center; top {{N/a}}
| style=text-align: center; top {{N/a}}
which injects this kind of template:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:N/aaction=edit
In other words, a table partially constructed out of table cell templates.
Now, I understand that you've dealt with dirty diffs resulting from
people editing pages using those templates, and I know that sucks, so
sorry about that - but it's a hard problem, and I don't think it's
reasonable to frame it as an MVP-level one. The reasonable expectation
is to fix roundtripping issues on those hairy tables as soon as
possible, and ideally avoid any kind of accidental leakage of CSS into
the UI. But as you know, some of these templates don't even map
against HTML elements, so it's not a trivial issue.
We could spend literally months trying to make
tables-constructed-out-of-templates work nicely, and it would still be
a shitty experience, and those would be months not spent on actual MVP
features. Before we sink countless person hours into
tables-constructed-out-of-templates, I think we need to step back and
see what our options are for solving that particular problem well in
the long run. Perhaps there's a type of table-template we can support
well, and gradually migrate all tables to it, but it won't be easy.
I appreciate that you created the Disable VE template which makes it
possible to shield pages that are vulnerable to dirty diffs from VE.
That was a great hack (we should have included _that_ one with the
MVP, it would have saved users a lot of pain), and should help in
cases where an immediate fix isn't feasible.
As for copy-and-paste, yes, it's pretty wonky still, and I'm sure
causes a fair bit of frustration for first-time VE users who have no
experience with wikitext. However, it is there within a VE session,
and we see very few diffs where users are causing problems due to
broken copy-and-paste. Does that not match your experience? I've just
inspected another round of 100 diffs and didn't see a single
copy-and-paste related issue. Contrary to Andreas' claim, copying
references isn't completely broken, but the bug is pretty nasty when
it hits, so we'll get it fixed soon.
As for performance, it already was a high priority before release, and
we made huge gains in server-side performance thanks to the deployment
of a completely new caching infrastructure for VisualEditor and lots
of optimizations on Parsoid (still more to come). Where we could have
done better prior to release was client-side performance --
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote: The editor was able to change a 4 to a 5 in an existing table, that's true. Could that editor add a row? No. Add a column? No. Delete a row or a column? No. Are all of those operations part of the bare minimum feature set for table editing? Absolutely. No, I don't agree -- it's actually totally fine to say for now if you want to add rows etc., use the source editor. And as you know, once you start going into complex table manipulations, the product becomes a _lot_ more complex, because you need to be able to do so in a way that matches existing expectations of how a table should be structured, which vary by page (some augmented by templates, some using various inline CSS approaches, etc.). However, I do agree that we should do a better job communicating VE's limitations (they are listed pretty clearly in a bunch of places, but obviously you're not going to look if you're a new editor). This is why I think the approach of adding VE as a second tab with a clear beta label and an explanation when you open it is a reasonable way forward. It's not dirty diffs: the articles get converted to gibberish on saves: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Big_Time_Rush_episodesdiff=565906957oldid=565898974 Wholesale destruction of articles is *not* a dirty diff. The use of dirty diff was not intended to minimize that - we've seen destructive changes with VE, and we take them very seriously. Like I said, cleanly roundtripping has always been a top priority. The way we've prioritized them is by handcoding actual diffs we see in the real world and fixing things that occur frequently first. I also like the approach of shielding page content if needed. I just don't agree that providing a clean experience for _editing_ that type of masterfully template-constructed table is a fair expectation for a first release. You're right that copy/paste is badly broken across tabs, and still pretty broken even inside tabs, and we should have tried harder for the first release. But if I have time later today, I'll make you a video of how badly broken and slow copy/paste is in Google Docs across tabs, which has been around for many years now and seen a huge amount of world-wide usage -- not to even mention other less widely used web-based RTEs. Again, I'm not minimizing it -- just saying that what look like obvious easy issues often turns out to be a very complex problem that you end up being better served iterating on in the real world. What I do agree with is that we need to now make a change to the user experience to acknowledge the legitimate issues with the current experience, dial back the firehose, and more prominently inform users about VE's limitations. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Thursday, August 1, 2013, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgjavascript:; wrote: On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.orgjavascript:; wrote: I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation. Key word there being knowingly. I don't know why the NSA would sneak around in our data centres mirroring our ethernet ports if they already have almost all of our access logs by capturing unencrypted traffic as it passes through XKeyscore nodes. Especially not when they can get someone else to do it for them. I think you should save the conspiracy theories until after we switch anons to HTTPS, that's when they will have an incentive. And I thought Ryan Lane was talking about the future, not the past. I certainly was. I'm talking about both. - Ryan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF July 2013 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, August 1, 18:00 UTC
REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Praveena Maharaj pmaha...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Dear all, The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday, August 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube stream. The current structure of the meeting is: * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also specialized reports and analytics * Review of financials * Welcoming recent hires * Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority initiatives * Update and QA with the Executive Director, if available Please review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further information about how to participate. We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting. Thank you, Praveena -- Praveena Maharaj Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering and Product Development +1 (415) 839 6885 ext. 6689 www.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF 2013 elections post-mortem
Anders Wennersten, 31/07/2013 09:18: As Bishakha I believe time now is ripe to strengthen the election process and that we should aim for a standing committee. In the same time I think it would be good to look into this group a bit further (technical support, how to elect the committee, split dates for FDC/board elections etc). I have put up a proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem/Report_from_Risker where I differ with Bishakha on the size and think five members, more dedicated, would do The proposals differ, but they all seem to share some premises that I don't understand. In my opinion: 1) if we have few candidates and few votes for the WMF board election, of course the board itself is responsible of this and has to take care of it: it's not about election processes or other superstructures; 2) if the election committee as a whole failed to do its job, its scope and recruitment should be more focused (so that people know what's important to get done and they do it), rather than its prerogatives further expanded. The two are tightly connected, see (B) below. Two examples. A) I want the election committee to ensure that each vote is kept private and counted fairly: this year's committee didn't explain what the consequences of migrating to a WMF-hosted wiki are; a bigger committee would reduce privacy. B) I don't want the committee to decide the rules for the elections, especially during the elections. That's both wrong and a waste of time. Rules should be decided by the board (directly or not, addressing COI of course) in a way that makes them integral to a broader reasoning on what the board should be and what are the means for reaching the defined goals. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that just because And those just because rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along. So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry? Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL source!!! We have become a joke! How about being constructive? If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected - ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do something constructive for a change. In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us]) would object to being featured in such a racist article. I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count. Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for themselves are not. Best regards, Rui -- Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? The Ainu people, not that it matters. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Disinformation regarding perfect forward secrecy for HTTPS
With the NSA revelations over the past months, there has been some very questionable information starting to circulate suggesting that trying to implement perfect forward secrecy for https web traffic isn't worth the effort. I am not sure of the provenance of these reports, and I would like to see a much more thorough debate on their accuracy or lack thereof. Here is an example: http://tonyarcieri.com/imperfect-forward-secrecy-the-coming-cryptocalypse As my IETF RFC coauthor Harald Alvestrand told me: The stuff about 'have to transmit the session key I the clear' is completely bogus, of course. That's what Diffie-Hellman is all about. Ryan Lane tweeted yesterday: It's possible to determine what you've been viewing even with PFS. And no, padding won't help. And he wrote on today's Foundation blog post, Enabling perfect forward secrecy is only useful if we also eliminate the threat of traffic analysis of HTTPS, which can be used to detect a user’s browsing activity, even when using HTTP, citing http://blog.ioactive.com/2012/02/ssl-traffic-analysis-on-google-maps.html It is not at all clear to me that discussion pertains to PFS or Wikimedia traffic in any way. I strongly suggest that the Foundation contract with well-known independent reputable cryptography experts to resolve these questions. Tracking and correcting misinformed advice, perhaps in cooperation with the EFF, is just as important. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Rui, if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all? Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals. So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything beyond trolling. All the best, Denny 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that just because And those just because rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along. So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry? Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL source!!! We have become a joke! How about being constructive? If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected - ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do something constructive for a change. In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us]) would object to being featured in such a racist article. I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count. Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
On 8/1/13 10:22 PM, Rui Correia wrote: So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. There are a surprising number of such articles, though not specifically on Khoi people living in Denmark (yet). One can, however, read about [[Chinese people in Denmark]], [[Pakistanis in Denmark]], [[Somalis in Sweden]], and likewise for many pairs of X-in-Y. I agree there is systemic bias in which subset of such X-in-Y pairs have articles, especially good ones. I suspect systemic bias in the availability of English-language sources is one contributing factor (and likewise the availability of German-language sources for the analogous de.wiki articles, etc.). -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Denny If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so. Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has 'acquired' through time. Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right, but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as it is? Rui On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.dewrote: Rui, if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all? Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals. So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything beyond trolling. All the best, Denny 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that just because And those just because rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along. So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry? Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly
[Wikimedia-l] Open call for Individual Engagement Grant proposals and committee members
Hi all, The Wikimedia Foundation and the Individual Engagement Grants Committee invite you to submit proposals for grants of up to $30,000 to support 6-month projects that improve the Wikimedia community. These grants fund individuals or small teams to organize, build, create, research or facilitate something that enhances the work of Wikimedia’s volunteers. The deadline to submit a proposal for this round is 30 September 2013: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG We’re also seeking new committee members to help review and recommend proposals for funding. The round 2 committee will be finalized 31 August 2013: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Committee You can read more about what the previous round of grantees have been working on here: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/ieg-learnings-call-new-proposals/ Hope to have your participation! Best wishes, Siko -- Siko Bouterse Head of Individual Engagement Grants Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the edit button today, and help us make it a reality!* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Denny PS: Your email is a typical case of shooting the messenger. I have seen far too often that we seem to prefer that we don;t see the elephant in the room. What happens to emails such as mine? Nothing. They get flushed down the gutter of electronic waste. There are so many bodies within the Foundation, is there a a body that specifically listens to people to be abe to gauge the mood of the masses of editors? And I don't mean that internal/ built-in dispute resolution mechanisms because you know just as I do that those are dominated by the same kind of people who want to preserve a specific point of view. Rui On 1 August 2013 22:55, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: Denny If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so. Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has 'acquired' through time. Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right, but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as it is? Rui On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.dewrote: Rui, if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all? Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals. So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything beyond trolling. All the best, Denny 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that just because And those just because rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along. So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry? Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias, ever_. It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has never been an encyclopedia yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an encyclopedia is not a useful one. We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese, and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish. What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this underrepresentation. A. [1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda done? It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/ On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that just because And those just because rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along. So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry? Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL source!!! We have become a joke! How about being constructive? If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected - ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do something constructive for a change. In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us]) would object to being featured in such a racist article. I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count. Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right, but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as it is? I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in print. I am also a social media metrics lover. As a journalist, I value verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting. If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic bias on a large scale. You have pulled one article and non-neutrally labeled it as a representative article for all projects. Yes, I know of a number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is far from 99% of all articles on the project. (I would put the number at probably 0.1% and that feels generous.) This feels like a sensationalist claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles. Bad research. Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY, VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have little thoughtful documentation. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Asaf So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. The elephant in the room is so big that we there isn't even enough room to breathe properly to get enough oxygen to our brains. Rui On 1 August 2013 23:10, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias, ever_. It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has never been an encyclopedia yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an encyclopedia is not a useful one. We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese, and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish. What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this underrepresentation. A. [1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda done? It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/ On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that just because And those just because rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along. So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry? Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL source!!! We have become a joke! How about being constructive? If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected - ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do something constructive for a change. In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us]) would object to being featured in such a racist article. I will
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history. This is not a useful definition. Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't going to solve it. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Laura If this is a VERY VERY important topiic, as you put it, then why don't YOU help, instead of joingng the knee-jerking squad? If you agree that it is a very important topic and you are apparenly a better journalist that me, why don't you do a better job rather than attacking the messenger? Answer the folowing questions: Do we have problems? Are we tackling them seriously? Are we attacking the problems or attacking those who raise them? Rui On 1 August 2013 23:18, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right, but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as it is? I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in print. I am also a social media metrics lover. As a journalist, I value verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting. If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic bias on a large scale. You have pulled one article and non-neutrally labeled it as a representative article for all projects. Yes, I know of a number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is far from 99% of all articles on the project. (I would put the number at probably 0.1% and that feels generous.) This feels like a sensationalist claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles. Bad research. Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY, VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have little thoughtful documentation. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
David I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is. So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic bias [which] is a serious problem? Rui On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history. This is not a useful definition. Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't going to solve it. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Let me pose a set of questions - 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles? 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached creating some articles? 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in accessible reliable sources of some article topics? If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of cause are for that aspect of systemic bias? George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: David I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is. So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic bias [which] is a serious problem? Rui On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history. This is not a useful definition. Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't going to solve it. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
George Thank you for your interest. It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV. I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and what the POV are that lead to that behavour. Rui On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Let me pose a set of questions - 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles? 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached creating some articles? 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in accessible reliable sources of some article topics? If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of cause are for that aspect of systemic bias? George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: David I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is. So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic bias [which] is a serious problem? Rui On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history. This is not a useful definition. Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't going to solve it. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
The specific examples you started with are not to my knowledge problem POVs - unless one of the White Power groups showed up while I wasn't paying attention. It would seem much more of the not gotten there yet or not (yet) well covered in reliable sources for the specific ones. Am I misunderstanding? Unless I did miss something, it seems to me that the specific examples were poorly chosen and did not either clearly identify or illustrate the problem you are now getting at. Which is a real but very complicated problem. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: George Thank you for your interest. It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV. I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and what the POV are that lead to that behavour. Rui On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Let me pose a set of questions - 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles? 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached creating some articles? 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in accessible reliable sources of some article topics? If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of cause are for that aspect of systemic bias? George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: David I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is. So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic bias [which] is a serious problem? Rui On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history. This is not a useful definition. Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't going to solve it. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
I rarely jump in controversial topics here in Wikimedia-l, but I've decided to share my 2 cents today. I sign up for what Laura Hale said on facts data based support for such a claim, but would like just to add a question: * what does a real encyclopedia look like? While I do see Rui Correia's points on diversity (of content, perspectives and editors), and while I do agree that's important to call attention to what could be a (even if unintentional) biased frame to whole set of subjects, I do not see how this valuable concern and criticism might take us to the assumption that it's not a real encyclopedia. At least in Wikipedia we (I mean anyone) can fight for more diverse approaches on that. Perhaps changing the framework of such criticism (how can we pursue less intentional or unintentional biased perspectives in WP?) might lead us to a more interesting conversation, with more potential to succeed in terms of real change. Oona On 1 August 2013 18:38, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Let me pose a set of questions - 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles? 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached creating some articles? 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in accessible reliable sources of some article topics? If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of cause are for that aspect of systemic bias? George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: David I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is. So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic bias [which] is a serious problem? Rui On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and only after that showing that you somehow agree. No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history. This is not a useful definition. Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't going to solve it. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia
Rui, as others are trying to tell you in this thread, I do not consider the manner you are raising this topic to be helpful or constructive, and I don't think that your continued defense of your approach will help or get us anywhere. Whereas anecdotal war stories as the one you describe can be either interesting or boring, it does not provide sufficient evidence to act. On the other hand, there is a growing body of research work that is trying to understand the topic of diversity and POV in Wikipedia. Telling me that I am refusing to see that elephant in the room is kind of amusing, considering that I have co-written the proposal for and have been working on the EU-funded research project Render - Reflecting Knowledge Diversity [1], where Wikimedia is a project partner. And there are many, many others doing research on the topic as well. All of the things you describe -- analysis of revert-patterns, approaches towards measuring POV, etc. are being done. Maybe you want to read the papers about this and look through the findings. Also, diversity is a major topic at the work at the German Wikimedia chapter, where I am employed, and it has been a major driver in the creation of the data model underlying Wikidata, where we are working hard on creating a truly diversity-enabling knowledge base -- something, that is rather unique in its scope and ambition. So, yes, I am shooting down your message. I find it as useful as telling a smoker to quit smoking because fire is bad, as evidenced in London 1666. There is no need to be sensationalist and counter-factual in order to get your point across. So, why not restart the whole thread with an Email where you make suggestions on how to improve the situation, or provide new evidence and data that can inform the conversation further, or where you ask for existing research on the topic to inform yourself, or ask for initiatives where you can help in order to increase Wikipedia's diversity, and join us in doing something constructive? Regards, Denny [1] http://www.render-project.eu 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com Denny If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so. Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has 'acquired' through time. Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right, but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as it is? Rui On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote: Rui, if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all? Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals. So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything beyond trolling. All the best, Denny 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry. What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white people if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disinformation regarding perfect forward secrecy for HTTPS
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:33 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: With the NSA revelations over the past months, there has been some very questionable information starting to circulate suggesting that trying to implement perfect forward secrecy for https web traffic isn't worth the effort. I am not sure of the provenance of these reports, and I would like to see a much more thorough debate on their accuracy or lack thereof. Here is an example: http://tonyarcieri.com/imperfect-forward-secrecy-the-coming-cryptocalypse As my IETF RFC coauthor Harald Alvestrand told me: The stuff about 'have to transmit the session key I the clear' is completely bogus, of course. That's what Diffie-Hellman is all about. Ryan Lane tweeted yesterday: It's possible to determine what you've been viewing even with PFS. And no, padding won't help. And he wrote on today's Foundation blog post, Enabling perfect forward secrecy is only useful if we also eliminate the threat of traffic analysis of HTTPS, which can be used to detect a user’s browsing activity, even when using HTTP, citing http://blog.ioactive.com/2012/02/ssl-traffic-analysis-on-google-maps.html It is not at all clear to me that discussion pertains to PFS or Wikimedia traffic in any way. I strongly suggest that the Foundation contract with well-known independent reputable cryptography experts to resolve these questions. Tracking and correcting misinformed advice, perhaps in cooperation with the EFF, is just as important. Well, my post was reviewed by quite a number of tech staff and no one rebutted my claim. Assuming traffic analysis can be used to determine your browsing habits as they are occurring (which is likely not terribly hard for Wikipedia) then there's no point in forward secrecy because there's no point in decrypting the traffic. It would protect passwords, but people should be changing their passwords occasionally anyway, right? Using traffic analysis it's also likely possible to correlate edits with users as well, based on timings of requests and the public data available for revisions. I'm not saying that PFS is worthless, but I am saying that implementing PFS without first solving the issue of timing and traffic analysis vulnerabilities is a waste of our server's resources. - Ryan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 9, Issue 30 -- 31 July 2013
Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/Op-ed News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/News_and_notes Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogsâoh my! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/Featured_content Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/Discussion_report WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/WikiProject_report Arbitration report: ''Race and politics'' case closes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/Arbitration_report Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/Traffic_report Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31/Recent_research Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-31 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disinformation regarding perfect forward secrecy for HTTPS
Ryan Lane wrote: ... Assuming traffic analysis can be used to determine your browsing habits as they are occurring (which is likely not terribly hard for Wikipedia) The Google Maps example you linked to works by building a huge database of the exact byte sizes of satellite image tiles. Are you suggesting that we could fingerprint articles by their sizes and/or the sizes of the images they load? But if so, in your tweet you said padding wouldn't help. But padding would completely obliterate that size information, wouldn't it? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] The Global Economic Map is looking for somebody with experience making bots
The top goal for the Global Economic Map right now is to make bots that will create empty articles for every country and region. I think this would be a good first step right now. Here is an empty article for spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox/Economic_Summary_of_Spain Does anybody want to help out or have any advice on this topic? Here is a link to the project page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map Thank you, Alex ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disinformation regarding perfect forward secrecy for HTTPS
On Thursday, August 1, 2013, James Salsman wrote: Ryan Lane wrote: ... Assuming traffic analysis can be used to determine your browsing habits as they are occurring (which is likely not terribly hard for Wikipedia) The Google Maps example you linked to works by building a huge database of the exact byte sizes of satellite image tiles. Are you suggesting that we could fingerprint articles by their sizes and/or the sizes of the images they load? Of course. They can easily crawl us, and we provide everything for download. Unlike sites like facebook or google, our content is delivered exactly the same to nearly every user. But if so, in your tweet you said padding wouldn't help. But padding would completely obliterate that size information, wouldn't it? Only Opera has pipelining enabled, so resource requests are serial. Also, our resources are delivered from a number of urls (upload, bits, text) making it easier to identify resources. Even with padding you can take the relative size of resources being delivered, and the order of those sizes and get a pretty good idea of the article being viewed. If there's enough data you may be able to identify multiple articles and see if the subsequent article is a link from the previous article, making guesses more accurate. It only takes a single accurate guess for an edit to identify an editor and see their entire edit history. Proper support of pipelining in browsers or multiplexing in protocols like SPDY would help this situation. There's probably a number of things we can do to improve the situation without pipelining or newer protocols, and we'll likely put some effort into this front. I think this takes priority over PFS as PFS isn't helpful if decryption isn't necessary to track browsing habits. Of course the highest priority is simply to enable HTTPS by default, as it forces the use of traffic analysis or decryption, which is likely a high enough bar to hinder tracking efforts for a while. - Ryan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
