Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:35 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: as i overrun my monthly limit of mails allowed on this list already, and i do not want an unrelated discussion on a public mailing list, this in private: nathan, would you be so kind to invest a little bit more thought into your mails? i pay bandwith for receiving your mails, and thousands of others also. just a couple of questions you might consider answering for yourself before contributing to a discussion about ticket prices on wikimania: * do you edit wikipedia, and how much? * if you do not edit, why? and why you use the time to write emails? and make others read your emails? * do you give money to wikimedia, and how much? * do you write software for wikimedia, and how much? * do you participate in conferences, meetings, and how many? * do you know accounting, and are able to calculate the price of attending? * if paid persons help organizing, this means a conference in UK is much more expensive than say in tansania? * should we host conferences then only in low wage, good connected cities, like mumbai? * if you go, what persons you want to meet there? beggars? subsidized people? not price sensitive people? * if you give money, would you like to attach a string, like only for server operations? * did you ever think that subsidizing people who need is a government business in many countries? * do you think i missed some angles in the above list? i even did a little research before sending this email. if you look at your stats, you write minimum 10-20 mails to the movement every month: * http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Nathan.html * http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html and by writing such emails, you even earn recognition: http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-wiki-wankers-2-nathan-awrich/ i'd be really glad to see mails from you where i can notice that you put some work into that mail, which helps me to learn new things, get new angles, and progress. and i even would not care if, instead 20, i only have to read 2 a month. best regards and a happy sunday, rupert. Hi Rupert, I've been reading and responding to the list since 2007. I edit the English Wikipedia from time to time, under my name or anonymously, although not nearly as much as I used to... but I remain a believer in and supporter of the Wikimedia movement, and I try to keep current on its progress. Once in awhile I offer my thoughts on one of the mailing lists, and I have donated money in the past (but not since WMF revenue crested into the tens of millions). I do attend conferences, and I am familiar with the principles of accounting. It is true that sometimes I get recognition of the type you link to, where a banned user researched my background, discussed it on his blog, labeled me a psychopath and suggested I be fired from my job. Along with an old threat of a lawsuit from an Italian megamillionaire, I consider such interactions the price of supporting Wikimedia under my real identity. Yet though I have answered your questions, I no more need to justify how I use my time to you than I do to the sciencepolice blogger. If you would prefer not to waste bandwidth on receiving my posts, feel free to filter them out. I won't return the favor, because telling people I disagree with to sit down and shut up just isn't my style. Have a great rest of the weekend yourself, Nathan ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 3/22/2014 2:04 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: As such, it seems clear that the donor in question is in the best position to evaluate whether the funds achieved their intended purpose. We don't really have good information in this case to do that for them, and imposing our ideas of what should be done with someone else's money is just wishful thinking. At the same time, it is clear that there are legitimate concerns with this project from the perspective of good editing practices and conflicts of interest. This is a good argument that it would have been better for the Wikimedia Foundation not to participate in the transaction, and gives reason to be leery of such pass-through arrangements in general. And in terms of organizational philosophy, it's also why the foundation focuses on fundraising from the general public rather than restricted gifts from individual donors. Looking at this from an audit committee perspective, the information so far suggests that the foundation could more carefully screen such gifts for alignment with our values, but at this point I haven't seen indications that this rises to the level of misuse of donor funds. Eh, that is not the point in my mind. If A wants to assist his relative B's work, and, for administrative reasons, they want to engage WMF as a middle man to make it appear as if there is no direct financial flow, then it's not for A to evaluate whether the funds achieved their intended pur- pose. There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a way that better fits our priorities. Had the Wikimedia Foundation actually done that, it would be highly improper. Depriving A of the ability to direct the use of the funds may vaguely feel like a just consequence for acting with impure motives, but we do not have the right to enforce such a result. The correct answer is much more likely to be a set of two possibilities. Either more work should have gone into ensuring alignment with our goals, or the foundation should have declined to get involved. The former is what Liam and others have tried to emphasize, and would require having conversations along the lines of, These are the kinds of things Wikipedians-in-Residence are expected to focus on, are you comfortable with your money being directed to those types of activities? The latter option, meanwhile, is always an acceptable course for us to take if it's not clear that we have a mutual understanding with the donor about how to spend the money. Organizations that distribute funds according to the deposi- tors' wishes are called banks and they have to ensure their compliance with relevant regulations. That's a very simplistic formulation which ignores the wide variety of organizations and professions that may need to handle funds belonging to other parties. Trustees, lawyers, and agents of various kinds do this all the time without needing to be banks, although certainly they typically use bank accounts as part of the process. Nonprofit organizations effectively do this when they accept restricted gifts. For many nonprofits, private foundations in particular, this is basically what they do with all the money that comes in the door. Compliance with the relevant regulations, meanwhile, is precisely the point. If the Wikimedia Foundation accepts such a donation, the rules require it to be distributed according to the terms set by the donor. Which again is why the fundraising emphasis is on general, unrestricted donations. WMF should make it very clear that it doesn't engage in any fishy transactions. No disagreement there. It's not clear if any of the staff involved were aware of the relevant facts at the time or understood their implications, but if the real motivation for the arrangement was to avoid disclosure or scrutiny of a related-party transaction on the part of either the Stanton Foundation or the Belfer Center, it suggests that the Wikimedia Foundation should have declined to participate. --Michael Snow ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a way that better fits our priorities. Had the ... When I was getting legal advice on the issues of Wikimedia UK becoming a charity, one of the issues I had to bend my mind around was the tax implications of how the charity could provide grants to non-UK projects. It is not possible for a UK charity to offer restricted grants without risking having to pay tax as if they were paying for a profit making commercial service, rather than gifting money. For this reason the UK charity will only offer *unrestricted* grants, based on a published proposal from the non-UK organization that will spend the grant on charitable purposes. I have little doubt that the IRS rules are just as stringent, otherwise US charities would be frequently used as container companies for tax avoidance and money-laundering. Something the WMF is extremely careful to avoid. I have no doubt that this will be specifically explained in the detailed governance report that is being worked on by WMF Legal and will hopefully be published next week. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a way that better fits our priorities. Had the ... When I was getting legal advice on the issues of Wikimedia UK becoming a charity, one of the issues I had to bend my mind around was the tax implications of how the charity could provide grants to non-UK projects. It is not possible for a UK charity to offer restricted grants without risking having to pay tax as if they were paying for a profit making commercial service, rather than gifting money. For this reason the UK charity will only offer *unrestricted* grants, based on a published proposal from the non-UK organization that will spend the grant on charitable purposes. I have little doubt that the IRS rules are just as stringent, otherwise US charities would be frequently used as container companies for tax avoidance and money-laundering. I'm not sure why you're responding to a point about the Wikimedia Foundation in the role of receiving a grant, one that in this case did not require funds to be transferred outside their country of origin, with a hypothetical discussion about Wikimedia UK in the role of making a grant, in which the funds would be transferred between countries that would not necessarily have the same systems for taxation or charitable organizations. Are charities in the UK prohibited from accepting donations to which any form of restriction is attached? --Michael Snow ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Are charities in the UK prohibited from accepting donations to which any form of restriction is attached? No. It can be quite common. On 23 Mar 2014 08:33, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a way that better fits our priorities. Had the ... When I was getting legal advice on the issues of Wikimedia UK becoming a charity, one of the issues I had to bend my mind around was the tax implications of how the charity could provide grants to non-UK projects. It is not possible for a UK charity to offer restricted grants without risking having to pay tax as if they were paying for a profit making commercial service, rather than gifting money. For this reason the UK charity will only offer *unrestricted* grants, based on a published proposal from the non-UK organization that will spend the grant on charitable purposes. I have little doubt that the IRS rules are just as stringent, otherwise US charities would be frequently used as container companies for tax avoidance and money-laundering. I'm not sure why you're responding to a point about the Wikimedia Foundation in the role of receiving a grant, one that in this case did not require funds to be transferred outside their country of origin, with a hypothetical discussion about Wikimedia UK in the role of making a grant, in which the funds would be transferred between countries that would not necessarily have the same systems for taxation or charitable organizations. Are charities in the UK prohibited from accepting donations to which any form of restriction is attached? --Michael Snow ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On 23 March 2014 08:32, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a way that better fits our priorities. Had the ... When I was getting legal advice on the issues of Wikimedia UK becoming a charity, one of the issues I had to bend my mind around was the tax implications of how the charity could provide grants to non-UK projects. It is not possible for a UK charity to offer restricted grants without risking having to pay tax as if they were paying for a profit making commercial service, rather than gifting money. For this reason the UK charity will only offer *unrestricted* grants, based on a published proposal from the non-UK organization that will spend the grant on charitable purposes. I have little doubt that the IRS rules are just as stringent, otherwise US charities would be frequently used as container companies for tax avoidance and money-laundering. I'm not sure why you're responding to a point about the Wikimedia Foundation in the role of receiving a grant, one that in this case did not require funds to be transferred outside their country of origin, with a hypothetical discussion about Wikimedia UK in the role of making a grant, in which the funds would be transferred between countries that would not necessarily have the same systems for taxation or charitable organizations. Are charities in the UK prohibited from accepting donations to which any form of restriction is attached? No, but they would have to be pretty badly managed not to understand if there would be later tax, criminality, or reputation damage implications either for themselves or the donating party. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ 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] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate. Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of saving bandwidth and faux concern. Cut it out. MZMcBride ___ 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] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how related it is to the thread. Private discussions between two people should remain that, _private_, no? I just don't get it. M. El 23/03/2014 04:33 p.m., MZMcBride escribió: I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate. Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of saving bandwidth and faux concern. Cut it out. MZMcBride ___ 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 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote: It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in this article under the circumstances. It's unacceptable under /any/ circumstances, but I don't see an obvious copyright violation, nor can I find a place where you pointed out one? Where was that established? Responding to your second email first, a search for copyright violation on all emails on this list will lead you right to the relevant post, by Russavia. Or search for copyright violations in the following page http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/443518 And in the email you quoted Russavia gave the diff where it can be found. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia-United_States_relationsdiff=prevoldid=524972499 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Russavia, First, I write here in my capacity as a volunteer and a member of the community you claim to speak on behalf of, clearly not as a staffer of the Foundation (not that engineering has anything to do with programs like this anyways). On 03/22/2014 09:00 AM, Russavia wrote: I understand this is a difficult time for the WMF, but many in the community (the number one stakeholder in our projects) will not be happy with simply getting a few reports from Sandole Whether or not you have a point about that position having been badly considered or having a been a waste of money -- and I'd be inclined to think that it was at least a little of both -- you've squarely crossed the line between asking legitimate questions and pointless harassment. You have selectively quoted Russavia. His email wasnt pointless harassment. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070681.html The email was primarily Russavia asking: Can you please provide the original JDF so the rest of the community has the opportunity to look at it. That is a legitimate question in the circumstances, given this was a document that appears to have been revised after publication and it is being discussed on this list without it being public. The tone of Russavia's email around that request had some rough edges, but so does your email. Credit where it is due : Russavia appears to have put quite a lot of time into this in the last few days, and shared an analysis that at least fairly conclusively points towards a serious problem. I'm not expecting Erik to make it his primary task on Monday morning to find and publish this, and do appreciate that he has been personally answering questions and publishing relevant documents already, but it is a pretty simple request and he has staff who can do it. Honestly this type of information should be publicly accessible from the get go. Why wasnt the JDF published on wiki? And discussed on wiki? It is surprising that quite a few people have known about this, and said nothing until now. It is also surprising that (afaik) the WMF didnt announce the person selected for this position to the community, to facilitate continual review of the ongoing program and its contributions, and hasnt undertaken a program evaluation of this already - one half of the Belfer position should have fallen directly in the scope of the Editing Workshops evaluation. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/Editing_workshops Even if Timothy has been highly disruptive rather than just apparently very inefficient (which he wasn't), promotional paid editing, inserting pro-U.S. POV and copyvio/plagiarism into English Wikipedia may not be 'highly disruptive', especially as there were so few edits involved, but it is far from 'just apparently very inefficient'. or if it has been donors' money that had been spent (which it wasn't), It is appropriate to distinguish between general public unrestricted donations vs 'the donor of the restricted money telling WMF what to do with it', however focusing on what was 'spent' is not appropriate. There are direct costs which may be larger than the granted amount; there are indirect costs, and there are opportunity costs. From what I have seen, I think it is fair to conclude that general public unrestricted donations will suffer from this broadly speaking. There may be quite a bit of direct costs that arnt covered by the Stanton grant per se, including selection process, onboarding, reviewing their work, and now handling the fallout of a failed project (e.g. Erik's time and I presume Jay is also working overtime). The Stanton grant quite probably included an amount for normal overheads related to the position (selection, onboarding, monitoring), but those costs could have blown out and/or the WMF decided to absorb the costs given the size of the restricted grant for program activity. However it is the indirect costs which will hurt. As the WMF
[Wikimedia-l] 1 week reminder: Wikimania 2014 – Call for Submissions
On 2 January 2014 04:24, James Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com wrote: Everyone, I would like to invite submissions[0] proposing presentations, panels, tutorials and workshops for Wikimania 2014 in London this coming August. Note that the deadline is the end of March; we hope to have final decisions about the programme by the end of April. [0] – https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions All, A reminder that this deadline is just over *one week away* – by the end of 31 March. Note that a complete submission is required, including an abstract of 300 words or more that explains to the Programme Committee why you think your proposal should be accepted over others. (For the curious, we will accept submissions up to 23:59 UTC−12:00 on 31 March 2014, which is 11:59 UTC on 1 April 2014, but not later.) Yours, -- James D. Forrester Chair, Programme Committee Wikimania 2014 jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.vewrote: Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how related it is to the thread. Private discussions between two people should remain that, _private_, no? I just don't get it. M. While in general that is the goal (private emails staying private) I would say that in a case like this, no, you have no expectation of privacy when you go 'off list' to, in my opinion, harass and intimidate someone about what they did on the list. I think Nathan was completely reasonable to bring it back on list and that MZs comment is completely correct. It's like 'taking it outside' of a bar to have a fight, the bar is completely reasonable in banning you for it and it's still illegal. Rupert's email was completely unacceptable and I'm glad Nathan brought it to our attention rather then either getting into a prolonged off-list debate that helps no one or letting it lie so that no one else was aware of the attacks. James El 23/03/2014 04:33 p.m., MZMcBride escribió: I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate. Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of saving bandwidth and faux concern. Cut it out. MZMcBride ___ 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 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Before we start thinking about the implications for WiR in general or WMF's relationship with Stanton, I think we should focus on establishing the facts of what happened here. After we have a good understanding of the facts we can discuss the implications. I'm still waiting for Arbcom to get back to me before I comment more extensively. I'm guessing that they may take awhile if they need to establish consensus among themselves before responding. Pine ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
With respect to Sandole's editing of the article on [[Opposition to military action against Iran]] The edit listed in this thread * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opposition_to_military_action_against_Irandiff=514822741oldid=514817891 by itself would seem to show undue emphasis on one particular researcher at the center. But looking at it in context of the entire body of his additions to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opposition_to_military_action_against_Irandiff=519399894oldid=513945067 shows he has also adding a long section by another scholar criticizing Kroenig. (the section dealing with three other people at the Center was there long before he began editing the article. ) I think this shows an attempt at balance, but I suppose it could be argued that it represents an attempt at further enhancing Kroenig's importance On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:14 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote: It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in this article under the circumstances. It's unacceptable under /any/ circumstances, but I don't see an obvious copyright violation, nor can I find a place where you pointed out one? Where was that established? Responding to your second email first, a search for copyright violation on all emails on this list will lead you right to the relevant post, by Russavia. Or search for copyright violations in the following page http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/443518 And in the email you quoted Russavia gave the diff where it can be found. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia-United_States_relationsdiff=prevoldid=524972499 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Russavia, First, I write here in my capacity as a volunteer and a member of the community you claim to speak on behalf of, clearly not as a staffer of the Foundation (not that engineering has anything to do with programs like this anyways). On 03/22/2014 09:00 AM, Russavia wrote: I understand this is a difficult time for the WMF, but many in the community (the number one stakeholder in our projects) will not be happy with simply getting a few reports from Sandole Whether or not you have a point about that position having been badly considered or having a been a waste of money -- and I'd be inclined to think that it was at least a little of both -- you've squarely crossed the line between asking legitimate questions and pointless harassment. You have selectively quoted Russavia. His email wasnt pointless harassment. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070681.html The email was primarily Russavia asking: Can you please provide the original JDF so the rest of the community has the opportunity to look at it. That is a legitimate question in the circumstances, given this was a document that appears to have been revised after publication and it is being discussed on this list without it being public. The tone of Russavia's email around that request had some rough edges, but so does your email. Credit where it is due : Russavia appears to have put quite a lot of time into this in the last few days, and shared an analysis that at least fairly conclusively points towards a serious problem. I'm not expecting Erik to make it his primary task on Monday morning to find and publish this, and do appreciate that he has been personally answering questions and publishing relevant documents already, but it is a pretty simple request and he has staff who can do it. Honestly this type of information should be publicly accessible from the get go. Why wasnt the JDF published on wiki? And discussed on wiki? It is surprising that quite a few people have known about this, and said nothing until now. It is also surprising that (afaik) the WMF didnt announce the person selected for this position to the community, to facilitate continual review of the ongoing program and its contributions, and hasnt undertaken a program evaluation of this already - one half of the Belfer position should have fallen directly in the scope of the Editing Workshops evaluation. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/Editing_workshops Even if Timothy has been highly disruptive rather than just apparently very inefficient (which he wasn't), promotional paid editing, inserting pro-U.S. POV and copyvio/plagiarism into English Wikipedia may not be 'highly disruptive', especially as there were so few edits involved, but it is far from 'just apparently very inefficient'. or if it has been donors' money that had been spent (which it wasn't), It is appropriate to distinguish
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 11 -- 19 March 2014
Interview: Nate Ott: the writer behind 71 articles in the English Wikipedia's largest-ever good topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/Interview Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/Forum News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/News_and_notes Traffic report: Into thin air http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/Traffic_report WikiProject report: We have history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/WikiProject_report Featured content: Spot the bulldozer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/Featured_content Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-19 https://www.facebook.com/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] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
Definitely a cultural thing -I still don't understand why someone can feel intimidated or harassed by that e-mailI'd better not go into details because it can be understood as I'm attacking an ethnic/linguistic group of wikimedians :-) Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org Date: 23/03/2014 23:47 (GMT+02:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.vewrote: Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how related it is to the thread. Private discussions between two people should remain that, _private_, no? I just don't get it. M. While in general that is the goal (private emails staying private) I would say that in a case like this, no, you have no expectation of privacy when you go 'off list' to, in my opinion, harass and intimidate someone about what they did on the list. I think Nathan was completely reasonable to bring it back on list and that MZs comment is completely correct. It's like 'taking it outside' of a bar to have a fight, the bar is completely reasonable in banning you for it and it's still illegal. Rupert's email was completely unacceptable and I'm glad Nathan brought it to our attention rather then either getting into a prolonged off-list debate that helps no one or letting it lie so that no one else was aware of the attacks. James El 23/03/2014 04:33 p.m., MZMcBride escribió: I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate. Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of saving bandwidth and faux concern. Cut it out. MZMcBride ___ 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 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve ___ 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
