Re: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo
The legal team have provided some background on the hiring on Jones Day in this action. Here is their comment: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation#Legal_representation James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote on September 26, 2013, 15:22 UTC: Trademark don't self-enforce, they are enforceable as long as someone believes to you when you use them as threat tools. So yes, I suppose they might. ... and given that the WMF just hired the infamous Jones Day bullies as their representative before the OHIM to fight an opposition filled by their own volunteers (me and Federico), I don't think it's an unfair view. I suggest that everyone interested in the subject read http://www.dmlp.org/blog/**2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-** jones-day-blockshopper-**settlementhttp://www.dmlp.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-jones-day-blockshopper-settlement and related links for an overview of a 2009 Jones Day lawsuit against a start-up company Blockshopper.com which Paul Levy called a new a new entry in the contest for grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech the plaintiff doesn’t like. I'm aware that, being a party of the opposition, I shouldn't really comment on the WMF's litigation tactics, but it still leaves me wonder about the point of hiring, as some say, one of the worst trademark abusers in history, as their representative in this case. Tomasz __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-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] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
Hi Geoff, You want it, go ahead and do it. That is how it works. Cheers, Peter Southwood PS. What is the point you wish to make by saying you make a monthly contribution to WMF? - Original Message - From: Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:49 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia. An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence politics. I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the quoted sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics (i.e. government departments). What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like: [the carbon footprint of beef] [the carbon footprint of air travel] [the carbon footprint of a new house] etc. Wikipedia is the right place for such information to be presented. See more of my criticism here: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-wikipedia-too-credentialist/ Geoff Beacon P.S. I do make a modest monthly contribution to the Wikimedia foundation. -- Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.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 ___ 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] It's time to reclaim the community logo
Referring to John and Federico as these two individuals comes across as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition. Are you quite sure this is the effect you're after? On 9 October 2013 07:13, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote: The legal team have provided some background on the hiring on Jones Day in this action. Here is their comment: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation#Legal_representation James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote on September 26, 2013, 15:22 UTC: Trademark don't self-enforce, they are enforceable as long as someone believes to you when you use them as threat tools. So yes, I suppose they might. ... and given that the WMF just hired the infamous Jones Day bullies as their representative before the OHIM to fight an opposition filled by their own volunteers (me and Federico), I don't think it's an unfair view. I suggest that everyone interested in the subject read http://www.dmlp.org/blog/**2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-** jones-day-blockshopper-**settlementhttp://www.dmlp.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-jones-day-blockshopper-settlement and related links for an overview of a 2009 Jones Day lawsuit against a start-up company Blockshopper.com which Paul Levy called a new a new entry in the contest for grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech the plaintiff doesn’t like. I'm aware that, being a party of the opposition, I shouldn't really comment on the WMF's litigation tactics, but it still leaves me wonder about the point of hiring, as some say, one of the worst trademark abusers in history, as their representative in this case. Tomasz __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-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
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia should focus on Global South
Hello all! In a part of an article I wrote about Wiki Loves Monuments I have said that Wikimedia should focus on the Global South, also with projects like Wiki Loves Monuments. Wiki Loves Monuments is one of the most simple projects in what people can participate as user, just by making pictures, it is a pity that so less countries from the Global South participate. I think the Wikimedia movement should especially support those countries and helping them to reach out to their local cultural heritage. So I would say, half the job done. Up to the other half. https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_report Romaine ___ 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] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
Geoff, The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints suggests that you should seek assistance at the Teahouse before proceeding with further editing on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse Tim Starling wrote: ... http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/ cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could presumably cite when you write about these topics. On your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source, which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary sources directly? There may be some confusion between the meaning of primary and secondary sources here. http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/defra-study/ is a summary of several government document and peer reviewed primary sources. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html is a secondary source summarizing those primary sources, but it is not peer reviewed. However, it is considered reliable because it appears in a publication with editorial oversight of reporting and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x/abstract is a peer-reviewed primary source which includes an introductory literature review qualifying as a peer-reviewed secondary source, but the new findings will not be considered as reliable as the literature review summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint has some problems; for example the introduction is far too long and includes a header suggesting the intro has a body section in 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: September 2013
*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums. You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org. *This Month in GLAM – Issue IX, Volume III – September 2013* -- Belgium report: Europeana Fashion Fashion edit-a-thon; Wiki Loves Monuments http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Belgium_report France report: Aerial pictures of Versailles; In Brief http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/France_report Germany report: Reaching out for new partners http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Germany_report India report: Wiki Loves Monuments in India http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/India_report Italy report: Italian Wikipedia takes libraries http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Italy_report Mexico report: Wiki Loves Monuments 2013; edit-a-thon in La Merced historical neighborhood http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Mexico_report Netherlands report: Wiki Loves Monuments; ECNC photo competition; Europeana Fashion Edit-a-thon Antwerp; Fourth Dutch Wikipedian in Residence; Wiki loves libraries workshop; 10 years of CC licenses http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Netherlands_report Spain report: Amical projects: Catalan Culture; Wiki Loves Monuments http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Spain_report Sweden report: Sign language and case studies http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Sweden_report Switzerland report: New cooperation with Botanical Garden; History of Alps update; OpenGLAM workshop at OKCon http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Switzerland_report UK report: The Morning After the Month Before http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/UK_report USA report: Wikipedia at the Metropolitan New York Library Council in New York http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/USA_report Wiki Loves Monuments report: The world's largest photography contest has struck again, but missed many countries http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_report Open Access report: Thanks, OKCon, featured content, stats and a final http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Open_Access_report Calendar: October's GLAM events http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Contents/Events -- Single page view http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2013/Single Twitter http://twitter.com/ThisMonthinGLAM Work on the next edition http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom -- The *This Month in GLAM* team http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter ___ 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] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 115, Issue 18... Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
Tim Starling says: quote I don't really understand where you are coming from with this. Your own website http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/ cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could presumably cite when you write about these topics. On your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source, which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary sources directly? /quote My main points is that the increasing dependance of Wikipedia on peer review puts the power over knowledge in the hands of people, academics and governments, that have motives related to their careers and may include commercial and political interests. Take [the carbon footprint of beef] as an example. Beef has a very large carbon footprint between 14 and 37 times it's own weight of carbon dioxide equivalent. (hunt through my http://nobeef.org.uk as well as http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/ for details). But one of the best sources (not the only one) was the Work of Adrian Williams from Cranfield University. I ran his model for getting the carbon footprint of beef using a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for methane using a 20 year rather than a 100 year timescale. Some scientists are now pointing out that the 100 year timescale is now unrealistic but it is the conventional wisdom. The effect of choosing 20 years rather than 100 years is to increase the carbon footprint of beef. Additionally work by Shindell et. al. suggests methane's effect should by uprated for other reasons. The work of Adrian Mitchell that I used was in a report to the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs. I find it now hard to find. I think that is because it is politically inconvenient. The point about this work, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that it was not peer reviewed but a report to a government department. In my view it is clearly an important piece of work but I fear it would be rejected because it was not peer reviewed. See the moderator's comment mentioned in my BrusselsBlog piece I can see only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam. (That wasn't actually directed at me.) I have just noticed that almost a year ago a prospective entry was put in the talk section of Wilipedia's [beef] article. It suggests a new section [Environmental impacts of beef] and has important information in it. This has not made its way into the main article. It should have despite any reservations. To only include absolutely polished information just gives and advantage to those with the resources to polish and possibly dubious motives. There is important information that should be on Wikipedia that is missing. I'm pleased to say that my shortened section on the Beddington Zero Energy Development [BedZED] hasn't yet been removed. It says Embodied Carbon: Large. 67.5 tonnes CO2e for a 100 square metre flat. (OK. Perhaps I should have dug out the non-peer reviewed reference that gives this figure which was done by one of the project sponsors.) If it stays perhaps I will add a section to [Beef], following the note in the talk section. The carbon footprint of beef: Very large. Between 12 and 35kg of CO2e are produced for every 1 kg of beef consumed What do you think? Geoff Beacon P.S. But articles [The carbon footprint of ...] would be wonderful. P.S.S. I'm a bit disappointed by use of the term Wikipedians. Does that exclude me? - Extracts from Original message - From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 115, Issue 18 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 06:14:01 + -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:49:50 +0100 From: Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia. Message-ID: 1381261790.28748.31588489.31910...@webmail.messagingengine.com Content-Type: text/plain An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence politics. I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the quoted sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics (i.e. government departments). What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like: [the carbon footprint of beef] [the carbon footprint of air travel] [the carbon footprint of a new house] etc. Wikipedia is the right place for such information to be presented. See more of my criticism here: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-wikipedia-too-credentialist/ Geoff Beacon P.S. I do make
[Wikimedia-l] My vision for WMF and the movement
Hello dear all, the following was one of the documents I created for my ED application. It took me quite some time to create it and thus it was clear for me at the beginning that I would publish it at some time point. I struggled a long time with myself though about when to publish it. I didn't want to publish it as long as I was an aspirant for the position since this seems to me to be unfair to the other candidates. And now that I am out of the run I think it is a good time to do this. Many of you may find your own ideas reflected in it. I think it is not surprising that ideas doesn't come from nowhere but from the interaction of people with each other. I want to thank you all for the thoughts you published here or elsewhere (like on Wikimania or on meta). I didn't change the wording of the text and I know it is quite inappropriate for this forum. And as I said before, since I am out of competition it is quite outdated, what makes it bit of embarrassing. I appologize for that. Greetings Ting In 2012 the Wikimedia Foundation conducted a cultural study about itself. As a result it identified its current corporate culture as that of the archetype of an Innocent. And the Foundation decided to transform itself into the archetype of a Sage in the coming years. For me to be a sage means to speak with wisdom, means people will pay attention to what you say, means own leadership. For me it is a leadership that is different from what is taught in schools. For me leadership does not mean to own a title, an impressive shoulder mark, a reward, or to be claimed an authority. For me leadership means to be able to convince people by wisdom, to let people follow you because they see the benefit by following you. I would like to lead the Foundation into such an organization. Into a small, in comparison to other world wide operating organizations with similar impact, but highly efficient organization that operates as the core of a movement with strong partners. I would like to describe in more detail about what I mean by this on three most important fields on which the Foundation is working: On software development, on community engineering and on movement leadership. Software development is a critical component of what the Foundation is doing. The Foundation need to keep improve the usability of its project sites, both for readers and for editors, and it needs to make the knowledge millions of volunteers contributed accessible by as many people as possible. As a board member of the WMF I have repeatedly urged the Foundation to increase the efficiency and organizational maturity of our tech department. For me the most important tasks on the technology side of the Foundation are the following two: Keep step with the contemporary technological and design progress, provide a good and modern foundation for other third party developers so that they can tap on the vast data set collected by the Wikimedia projects, and keep the development as near as possible to the users. In the past few years we see a dazzling development in communication and IT technology. Almost every year there was a new generation of mobile devices coming onto market and substitutes the older devices in just one or two years. And the currently dominating phones, tablets or even glasses will not necessarily be the dominating models in five or ten years. We saw major companies like Nokia or RIM lost hold on technological trend and thus fall out of the favor of the market in the past five years. Keeping pace with this tremendous development speed is almost impossible for an organization like the WMF. The Foundation had improved its software development efficiency in the past two years tremendously. Since one year we are using SCRUM as our software development method. Nevertheless I see further potential for improvement, especially with the use of SCRUM. For example the SCRUM method requires the involvement of the customer as part of the project. In theory the customer should be the project owner. For the WMF, the customers are its users (both editors and readers). Use the SCRUM philosophy on the WMF means that users should be given a possibility to be involved in the software development as early and as frequently as possible. For that reason the WMF should build up a test server where it can deploy part of its prototype development and invite users to test and comment the features in a very early phase. Another possibility to involve users as part of the project is to let users decide part of development priority. Take from the Bugzilla some of most asked feature requests and let users vote on Meta about which one should be resolved at first. Dedicate part of the engineering team on that request and build a project. After the feature is deployed, ask users vote for the next feature to be prioritized. This approach will also improve our goodwill inside of the community.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo
Hi All, Just a quick thought: I'm disappointed by the way that both sides in this dispute seem to have resorted to conducting a debate via press release. I think the community expectation would be that rather than this weird passive-aggressive way of communicating, that all parties would arrange a phone hookup, and sit down to work out any common ground, and go forward from there. I think the community's clear expectation is that this should be settled if possible without the assistance of lawyers, and all that requires is for everyone to step back, be reasonable, and consider that the other side might just have a legitimate reason for what they're doing beyond causing trouble for the other. Cheers, Craig (personal opinion only) On 9 October 2013 16:13, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote: The legal team have provided some background on the hiring on Jones Day in this action. Here is their comment: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation#Legal_representation James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote on September 26, 2013, 15:22 UTC: Trademark don't self-enforce, they are enforceable as long as someone believes to you when you use them as threat tools. So yes, I suppose they might. ... and given that the WMF just hired the infamous Jones Day bullies as their representative before the OHIM to fight an opposition filled by their own volunteers (me and Federico), I don't think it's an unfair view. I suggest that everyone interested in the subject read http://www.dmlp.org/blog/**2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-** jones-day-blockshopper-**settlement http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-jones-day-blockshopper-settlement and related links for an overview of a 2009 Jones Day lawsuit against a start-up company Blockshopper.com which Paul Levy called a new a new entry in the contest for grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech the plaintiff doesn’t like. I'm aware that, being a party of the opposition, I shouldn't really comment on the WMF's litigation tactics, but it still leaves me wonder about the point of hiring, as some say, one of the worst trademark abusers in history, as their representative in this case. Tomasz __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org 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
[Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo Message-ID
It is not. My apologies. Geoff Message: 2 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:09:46 +0100 From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo Message-ID: CAJ0tu1EWLb7L3OKFQRX0hg1PQjbKYg9Mj7QY8O+DRS_yDCWw=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Referring to John and Federico as these two individuals comes across as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition. Are you quite sure this is the effect you're after? ___ 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] It's time to reclaim the community logo Message-ID
The big problem is that it's pretty obvious WMF could legally obliterate Federico and John, and pointing the legal equivalent of an M1 Abrams tank at them - as you have - does give the impression that this is the aim. I suggest, however, that this would not only fail to win hearts and minds, but would in fact lose many. As such, the WMF's approach might benefit from consideration in this regard. Remembering that Federico *created* said logo. - 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] It's time to reclaim the community logo Message-ID
Actually said logo was created by WarX:. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg in order to make the creator more presonalized, see his Wikipedia userpage: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:WarX Indeed, he is quite an individual ;-) 2013/10/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: The big problem is that it's pretty obvious WMF could legally obliterate Federico and John, and pointing the legal equivalent of an M1 Abrams tank at them - as you have - does give the impression that this is the aim. I suggest, however, that this would not only fail to win hearts and minds, but would in fact lose many. As such, the WMF's approach might benefit from consideration in this regard. Remembering that Federico *created* said logo. - 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 -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ 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] Fwd: Re: Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
I meant to send this to the list. Geoff Beacon - Original message - From: Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.com To: James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia. Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:09:05 +0100 James, Thanks for your elucidation of primary and secondary sources but I am uneasy about your scoring system. e.g. the New Scientist is good because it has a reputation for fact checking. I think most people who look into the topic will agree that, for example, the carbon footprint of beef is between 10 and 40 times its own weight in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) so how would an entry in Wikipedia that said the following fit: [The carbon footprint of beef] Provisional answer. Very large. Somewhere between 10 and 40 times its own weight in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent. At present Wikipedia's silence does it a disservice giving a false overall impression of the state of knowledge - yes I mean knowledge. You can see my various websites thinks that should be broached even if not completely resolved. I don't really have the time to become a serious Wikipedia contributor. I don't have the time to keep up most of my websites. I would much rather Wikipedia was the source but I have been rather goaded into this response. The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints. What do you mean by that? The complexity argument is how the government sources get away with ignoring important issues like the missing feedbacks in climate models or the radiative forcing index in air travel - we don't properly understand them so we will ignore them. Best wishes Geoff - Original message - From: James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia. Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:38:30 +0800 Geoff, The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints suggests that you should seek assistance at the Teahouse before proceeding with further editing on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse Tim Starling wrote: ... http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/ cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could presumably cite when you write about these topics. On your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source, which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary sources directly? There may be some confusion between the meaning of primary and secondary sources here. http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/defra-study/ is a summary of several government document and peer reviewed primary sources. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html is a secondary source summarizing those primary sources, but it is not peer reviewed. However, it is considered reliable because it appears in a publication with editorial oversight of reporting and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x/abstract is a peer-reviewed primary source which includes an introductory literature review qualifying as a peer-reviewed secondary source, but the new findings will not be considered as reliable as the literature review summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint has some problems; for example the introduction is far too long and includes a header suggesting the intro has a body section in it. -- Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.com -- Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.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] It's time to reclaim the community logo Message-ID
I think saying these two individuals is meant to point up the fact that they aren't representing a bloc or group or organization in the movement; they are individuals. I don't see it as depersonalizing. People should focus on the core debate here, and not get distracted going down every avenue of attack against the WMF that seems slightly plausible. Jones Day is just a major, blue chip law firm with expertise in this area. Calling two people two individuals is not a deeply personal slight. ___ 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] Carbon footprints
Peter Southwood said... Hi Geoff, You want it, go ahead and do it. That is how it works. [GB: I thought my piece explained that was not how it worked for me and I won't be trying to contribute more without further thought.] Cheers, Peter Southwood PS. What is the point you wish to make by saying you make a monthly contribution to WMF? [GB: Just to point out I'm on the same side; I'm not sulking and I recognise the excellent service I get from Wikipedia. But I don't give very much!] -- Geoff Beacon geoffbea...@sent.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
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Wikimedia UK monthly report - August 2013
Hello everyone, Please see below Wikimedia UK's report for August 2013. The report can be seen on wiki at https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Reports/2013/August Many thanks, Stevie Below is the Wikimedia UK monthly reporthttps://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Reports for the period 1st to 31st August 2013. If you want to keep up with the chapter's activities as they happen, please subscribe to our bloghttp://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ , join a UK mailing listhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l, and/or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/wikimediauk. If you have any questions or comments, please drop us a line on this report's talk pagehttps://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reports/2013/Augustaction=editredlink=1 . Programme activities Community Discussions / training of the following: the Welsh Society at Monmouth, presentation at Cardiff University (discussed wiki with Ken Skates), the Coleg Cymraeg (met Ioan Matthews Chief Exec, Dr Dafydd Trystan and Dr Dylan Phillips), Swansea University (met Proff. Iwan Davies, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Dr Rhys Jones etc), HWB (met Catrin Hughes), Bridgend County Council (Mike Evans), SAW (met Katie Fisher). Welsh Book Council places 3,249 professionally written book reviews on CC-BY-SA. *Microgrant outcome* Andy Mabbett https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/User:Pigsonthewing successfully applied for a microgrant for sound recording equipment to support his project to record the voices of notable people to include in the appropriate Wikipedia articles. More detail can be seen herehttps://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Microgrants/Recorder_for_voice_intro_project. Updates on Andy's project will be made available at a later date. GLAM activities On the 8th August we ran our first evening GLAM editathon in Londonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Atheism/Conway_hall_editathon. It was our first event at Conway hall, and it established that we could get people to an evening event, even in August, though few of the participants were actually commuters. Technology Work continued in preparation for the September migration of this wiki to Wikimedia UK hosting. Other activities *Wiki Loves Monuments* August was the busiest month for the WLM volunteers and helpers, getting everything ready for the start of the contest on 1st September. During the month significant staff assistance was made available to take up some of the strains without which the volunteers would not have coped. Tasks for the month (volunteers with staff assistance) included finalising the lists on the English Wikipedia, dealing with template issues, setting up and working on the WLM website http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk/, writing blog entries, answering user queries, liaising with the press, notifying the competition to 250+ local history, civic, and photographic societies around the country, setting up the UK jury, liaising with the international competition organisers, proving technical feedback and testing of the proposed jury tool, and providing Welsh language support. *Grants* Information about grants that are currently running, and how to submit a grant application of your own, are at Microgrants/Applicationshttps://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Microgrants/Applications . UK press coverage (and coverage of UK projects activities) Storming Wikipedia - Project tackles the site's 'women problem' - Huffington Posthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/wikipedia-women-storming-female-editors_n_3817138.html Blog posts this month 5 August - EduWiki Conference 2013 - call for proposalshttps://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/eduwiki-conference-2013-call-for-proposals/ 7 August - Revitalising Wikipedia coverage of women scientistshttps://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/revitalising-wikipedia-coverage-of-women-scientists/ 9 August - Wikimedia Chapters to deliver Wikimedia Diversity Conferencehttps://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/1787/ 12 August - Wiki Loves Monuments recruits distinguished judgehttps://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/wiki-loves-monuments-recruits-distinguished-judge/ 13 August - Congratulations and thank you to the Wikimania 2013 team!https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/congratulations-and-thank-you-to-the-wikimania-2013-team/ 16 August - A month as Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotlandhttps://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/a-month-as-wikimedian-in-residence-at-the-national-library-of-scotland/ 21 August - Notes from the editathon at Conway Hall, Londonhttps://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/notes-from-the-editathon-at-conway-hall-london/ Events in August Take a look here https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Events#August for a full list of events which took place in August. For upcoming events please see Eventshttps://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Events . Administrative activities Board activities Three Board members (Chris, Saad and Alastair) attended Wikimania in Hong Kong. We had a number of very
Re: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo
On 10/09/2013 03:09 AM, David Gerard wrote: Referring to John and Federico as these two individuals comes across as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition. I should expect the intent (and this is how it came across to me) is to not *personalize* the dispute by naming them. -- Marc ___ 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] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations
Hi all, my 2cents here (sorry for the late answer, I am having very busy days ...) 2013/10/3 Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il: [...] Now, when during her ten years existence the foundation started to focus on *HER* evaluation? When they had one staffer or 40? And let not forget - the foundation in her daily program don't deal daily with volunteers working as part of their core programs of operate from their office, something that it's different from the chapters. On this point, till some weeks ago I would wholeheartedly agree with you Itzik, and you can rest assured that I completely second the idea that evaluation should be fair among entities: we have a huge varety of conditions and context to take into account; but (there's a but) in Wikimania I made this very same reasoning with Delphine and she replied me back something along the lines of yes, but there is no turning back [she did not really say this, this is what I got :-)]. And that's a good point, actually! I think that we all agree that at least some of the ideas implemented in the various grant processes (FDC, GAC, ...) are good. Ideas like: measuring the impact of what you do; defining long term goals; evaluate if this activity is better than that other activity... quoting from your e-mail: I admire evaluation, I admire audit and failure reports. I think we should know what we are doing and learn from the past. But I'm also realistic, knowing that good evaluation require knowledge. So the point is: since we agree that these are good ideas we try to implement them at our best. I think this is what we usually do, btw. I know that then there is the very important and pratical question of how and how much we should evaluate our activity (see below about this). So, because I cannot surly measure the volunteer's success – from now we will decide about if project is going to exist or now only if I 100% can measure him on the level of how many women editors was at the room and how many of them had laptops (not far away from a question that we been asked by the WMF of how many people with SLR cameras came to our photo tours)? Should we start chasing just after numbers? This is a big point. No, you should not start chasing numbers. In short I think that focusing only on raw numbers alone is naïve (please refer to the discussion on the evaluation of scientific research for an analogous discussion). Reminding of Asaf from the Global South Strategy presentation at Wikimania, we have for sure a lot to learn about how to do better the things we do and we woud also like having some research on the matter. This also includes evaluation, I think. Furthermore, we should be aware of how most of the chapters work: they are associations. In my feeling we like them to be participated, to be democratic and we like them when their goals are set through careful discussions, with contributions from everybody interested in the community (aka the stakeholders), so we have to keep in mind that these assemblies are setting the direction. Volunteer engagement in the process is paramount also because is a little bit hard to do anything if you can not engage the people who are *your* volunteers. The point is that, instead of chasing numbers, your chapter should start a discussion to set his mid and long term goals and then focus on them and on keeping to engage its members. Of course the WMF strategic goal are a good path and example, and more generally everybody in the movement is in charge to ensure that what we do is compatible with the Wikimedia vision. 2013/10/4 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com: [...] This will inevitably highlight differences of opinion and approach, but where those differences happen it's even more important to articulate those views respectfully. There's been much less of a sense of us and them recently and let's keep it that way. +1, I hope that working togheter throughly in occasion of the FDC process (and also the GAC, etc.) will help us getting better and better on this matter. Ciao, C ___ 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] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
Please either turn off digests and reply to the individual list mails, or use the NNTP interface at gmane.org, so that your Subject and References headers will be correct and threading will work. On 09/10/13 20:48, Geoff Beacon wrote: The work of Adrian Mitchell that I used was in a report to the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs. I find it now hard to find. I think that is because it is politically inconvenient. The point about this work, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that it was not peer reviewed but a report to a government department. In my view it is clearly an important piece of work but I fear it would be rejected because it was not peer reviewed. See the moderator's comment mentioned in my BrusselsBlog piece I can see only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam. (That wasn't actually directed at me.) Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It does have POV pushers, which are a different thing. [[WP:V]] recommends, but does not require, peer review for sources. I have just noticed that almost a year ago a prospective entry was put in the talk section of Wilipedia's [beef] article. It suggests a new section [Environmental impacts of beef] and has important information in it. This has not made its way into the main article. It should have despite any reservations. To only include absolutely polished information just gives and advantage to those with the resources to polish and possibly dubious motives. It's definitely a good idea to polish your text, especially if you are writing about a controversial topic. Note that text doesn't just make its way from the talk page to the article, an ordinary editor (like you) has to put it there. There is important information that should be on Wikipedia that is missing. I'm pleased to say that my shortened section on the Beddington Zero Energy Development [BedZED] hasn't yet been removed. It says Embodied Carbon: Large. 67.5 tonnes CO2e for a 100 square metre flat. (OK. Perhaps I should have dug out the non-peer reviewed reference that gives this figure which was done by one of the project sponsors.) If it stays perhaps I will add a section to [Beef], following the note in the talk section. The carbon footprint of beef: Very large. Between 12 and 35kg of CO2e are produced for every 1 kg of beef consumed What do you think? I think very large is too vague, it needs to be compared to something. Also, if you are concerned that 100 year GWP underestimates the impact of beef production, and want to use the 20 year GWP, then the obvious solution is to quote both. NPOV policy favours expansion over replacement. -- Tim Starling ___ 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
