Re: [Wikimedia-l] Input needed: Cooperation with zoos?

[Milos Rancic]

Thanks for clarificatiom! I see that the rule is basically not to care
about animal rights issues, which is fine with me. ("We don't know about
the issues" in relation to this matter is equal to "we don't know that war
kills".)

I won't go with environmentalist groups, as they are here either
dilettantes or corrupted or both. But thanks Daniel, we'll contact you when
they write application (at this moment, we just have their idea).
On May 30, 2014 2:04 AM, "Daniel Mietchen" 
wrote:

> That looks impressive, Balazs - thanks to the Hungarian community!
>
> Daniel
> --
>
> http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
> http://okfn.org
> http://wikimedia.org
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Balázs Viczián
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I haven't heared any issues with animal treatment in Hungarian zoos
> > (moreover the news I can recall reports continous improvement, like
> > expanding getting renovated/modernised, etc.)
> >
> > I have no idea about the Serbian ones or the rest of the world.
> >
> > We've just completed a QR-project with a zoo in Hungary; it might be
> > interesting for you.
> >
> > Find the documentation (google translator needed as it is in
> > Hungarian-only) here:
> >
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AMiskolc-m%C5%B1hely%2FGLAM-ZOO
> >
> > in short: 80 articles were (mostly significantly) improved plus 34 new
> > created (114 articles in total) and the same number of QR codes put out
> and
> > our cooperation won't stop here :)
> >
> > If you're concerned about animal treatment, think about something else
> > then, for example botanical gardens :)
> >
> > Also a QRpedia project, also recently completed, but not finished (as the
> > cooperation will continue beyond mainenance) with the country's largest
> and
> > most prestigeous botanical garden and also Hungarian-only documentation:
> >
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:N%C3%B6v%C3%A9nyek_m%C5%B1helye/V%C3%A1cr%C3%A1t%C3%B3t
> >
> > Both were conducted by Wikipedia project groups thus both had a team of
> > editors behind them.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Balazs
> > 2014.05.29. 23:45, "Milos Rancic"  ezt írta:
> >
> >> There is ongoing Microgrants project in Wikimedia Serbia. In brief, we
> >> asked people to give us ideas, so we could talk about them. There are
> >> some interesting ideas and a number of not so relevant.
> >>
> >> We've got the offer to cooperate with one of the zoos from Serbia. At
> >> this moment of time, there is just their idea, nothing more precise.
> >>
> >> Before I proceed with the application (give suggestion to WMRS Board),
> >> I want your input. In reality, I don't know that any zoo is perfect in
> >> relation to the treatment of animals. In reality, it's likely
> >> impossible to check that, as well as animal rights are not that well
> >> protected in Serbia like the case is in, let's say, in the most of EU
> >> countries.
> >>
> >> So, I am interested in prevalent opinion. What's more important to us:
> >> free knowledge or not cooperating with an institution which likely has
> >> issues with the treatment of animals -- the question is just about the
> >> level.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Àlex Hinojo]

Lila this is a great idea! we will sent you some mails :-)


2014-05-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov :

> Thanks so much Leigh -- when you do this please let me know if it is OK to
> share publicly. We will be using these to learn about how to best improve
> the UX.
>
> L
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter 
> wrote:
>
> > Ok! I have a training session with Tec de Monterrey students doing
> > community service on Sat. This will be part of their introduction!
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:24:33 -0700
> > > From: l...@wikimedia.org
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1
> > >
> > > I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help.
> Here
> > > it is:
> > >
> > > Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> > > first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I
> can
> > > better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> > > natural.
> > >
> > > I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk
> pages. I
> > > used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I
> had
> > > the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went
> > pretty
> > > smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did
> stumble
> > > in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and
> > for
> > > our team.
> > >
> > > Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a
> > kid
> > > making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> > >
> > > So now I have a challenge back to you:
> > >
> > >
> > >- Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
> > >- Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
> > >- Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
> > >- Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you!!!
> > > Lila
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[rupert THURNER]

participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does
not allow free participation. write emails, search for references,
download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university
stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population,
produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].

imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs
to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case,
give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we
need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could
support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia
contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3
edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free,
unrestricted.

if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in
nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with
pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5 million
we pay you a year.

[1] 
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wikipedia

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best  wrote:
> "Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as
> "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give more
> open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the people
> THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" - right
> now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great and
> awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
>
> Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different
> motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting for
> free knowledge around the globe.
>
> In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more and
> more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but where are
> their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further
> development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that what
> will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education organisations
> don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop of
> giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving free
> access to free knowledge around the world?
>
> I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational ressources
> zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that this
> is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer to
> stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net neutrality
> just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us which
> seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected enough on
> its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
>
>
> best regards
>
> Jens Best
>
>
>
>
> 2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
>
>> On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
>> > A noble cause
>> > doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
>>
>> In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously
>> perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to
>> educational resources for free to the world's least economically
>> fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
>>
>> > It could be the time to start talking
>> > globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble
>> > initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating
>> > countries/regions.
>>
>> So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you
>> can't afford access?  Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some
>> /other/ metric has been reached?
>>
>> -- Marc
> --
> Jens Best
> Präsidium
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
> mail: jens.best @wikimedia.de

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/29/2014 09:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> If not, the Telcos are making a loss.
> Why?

I should expect because they expect the goodwill they earn doing so will
turn people into paying customers.  Indeed, some of them have been
rather explicit in their expectation that as their customers grow up and
become more affluent, they'll remember the provider that gave them a
hand with free access to Wikipedia.

It *is* good publicity for them.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/29/2014 08:57 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> but it was misplaced because being able to figure out wikitext
> is an excellent attribute in new editors

I think that statement fails on two aspects: for one, saying that the
enthusiasm 'was misplaced' is rather premature as VE itself is rather
incomplete - we do not yet know its potential.

Secondly, and more importantly in my mind, "being able to figure out
wikitext" might be a good attribute, but making it a requirement pretty
much sacrifices any hope we have of getting rid of our systemic bias.
The vast majority of the planet cannot - or will not - have the time and
resources to learn an arcane and overcomplicated mishmash of markup
languages; yet many of those have knowledge and skill to share.

In 2004, when articles were mostly unformatted, that argument made
sense.  Most anyone with minimal computer skills (and that's already a
very restricted slice of the population) could edit a page to fix a typo
or add a statement or two without much difficulty.

Nowadays?  Not so much.  For the untrained eye, even finding the glaring
typo you saw in a reference is nearly impossible after you hit the edit
button.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Funds Dissemination Committee seeking nominations for new members

[Anasuya Sengupta]

tl;dr Self-nominations invited for four Board-appointed members of the FDC.
Nominate here.[3]


Dear members of the Wikimedia community,

The Funds Dissemination Committee Advisory Group (FDC AG) met recently in
Frankfurt to recommend to the Executive Director (ED) of the Wikimedia
Foundation whether the FDC - the nine member volunteer committee reviewing
annual plan grants or allocations for Wikimedia and allied organisations -
should continue or not, after the first two years of its existence.[1] The
detailed recommendations of the FDC AG will be shared with the Executive
Director and the community shortly, but we are happy to announce that the
AG recommends that the FDC continues to exist with some suggested
improvements to the process.

The final decision on the FDC will be taken by the ED and the Board of WMF
over the next few months (the FDC Framework’s timeline suggests August),
but the AG’s overall recommendation is a testimony to the deep commitment
and energy of the current FDC and the community members who have
participated in this unique peer-review grantmaking process. Thank you.

Without anticipating the ED and Board’s decision, we would like to move
forward with the process of renewing the current FDC with four
Board-appointed members of the FDC so that a full FDC is in place by August
2014. As per the Framework,[2] four of the current committee members will
be ending their two year terms in July, and four new members will be
appointed by the WMF Board to fill these vacancies.

I write to ask those of you interested in joining the FDC to signal your
interest on Meta by self-nominating by end of day UTC June 15.[3]  The
schedule for the nominations process is as follows:

* May 30 - June 15: Self nominations to join the FDC. Candidates indicate
their interest through a short paragraph about themselves, and respond to
an initial set of questions from the FDC staff

* June 1 - June 30:  Public question and answer [4] from community members
to candidates

* June 24 - July 3: FDC staff in consultation with the FDC Board
representatives (Bishakha Datta and Patricio Lorente) interview a sub-set
of nominated candidates

* July 3: Shortlist of candidates announced

* July 4 - 10: Decision on final four FDC candidates by the Board reps in
consultation with the full Board

* July 11: Public announcement to community of the four new members

* August: Based on the ED and Board’s decision on the FDC’s existence,
orientation of the new FDC at Wikimania

To be eligible to join the FDC, members need to meet the requirements
below, as outlined by the Framework.[5] They must:

* have sufficient time and dedication to commit to this time-heavy process,
including attending two 4-6 day face-to-face meetings (likely in mid-May
and mid-November) and be able to meet the expectations outlined in more
detail on the nominations page

* have a track record of constructive engagement in community discussions
and an orientation toward collaborative problem solving

* be able to set aside any conflicts of interest and work towards the
mission goals of the Wikimedia movement without considering individual or
organizational interests

* be over 21 years in age and over the age of majority in their home country

* be able to work effectively in English (note that full fluency is not
required)

* present to WMF appropriate personal identification

* Staff / board members of entities requesting funds from the FDC may serve
on the FDC;

however, they must recuse themselves from deliberations pertaining to their
entity's application.

The *skills and attributes* being sought for in FDC members include:

* Experience directing or evaluating programs;

* Grant-making expertise (either as a grantee or grantor of funds);

* Exposure to, understanding of, and personal credibility in the Wikimedia
movement (experience across different Wikimedia projects as well as
experience in programs, chapters, or administrative roles within the
Wikimedia movement);

* Gender, geographic and linguistic diversity.

There are no term limits for FDC members, and current members may choose to
re-apply for the FDC. The members whose terms end this July are Anders
Wennersten, Arjuna Rao Chavala, Mike Peel (current Secretary), and Yuri
Perohanych. The members who continue on the FDC for another year are Ali
Haidar Khan (current Vice-Chair), Dariusz Jemielniak (current Chair),
Cristian Consonni, Delphine Ménard and Sydney Poore.  More information
about the Committee’s roles is available on Meta.[6]

We’ll hold IRC office hours to answer questions, particularly for those of
you interested in joining the committee. Current FDC members may join these
office hours, based on their availability. Office hours will be held on the
#wikimedia-office channel on Wednesday, June 4 at 0:00 UTC and again later
that day at 16:00 UTC.[7]

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me and my FDC staff colleagues at
fdcsupp...@wikimedia.org. We’d be happy to answer any questions 

[Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF May 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, June 5, 18:00 UTC

[Praveena Maharaj]

Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
June 5, 2014 at 6 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 analytic
* Review of financials
* Welcoming recent hires
* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority
initiatives
* Update and Q&A 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 & Product Development
www.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:43 AM, C. Scott Ananian
 wrote:
> This is a fascinating discussion, but one which has been addressed in
> much greater depth elsewhere:
>   http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neutrality+wikipedia+zero
>
> It would indeed be interesting to hear EFF's take on the matter, which
> does not appear to have been stated publicly yet.
>
> Some related links:
> http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/
> see especially the first comment, which claims that "You[r] concept of
> net neutrality is technically, and wildly incorrect. [...] Net
> neutrality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with access. Especially
> access for poor users. It has to do with service providers being
> treated equally and fairly on the *infrastructure* that allows users
> access to those services."  (I don't know if I actually agree with
> this, but it's an interesting distinction.)
>
> http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/
>
> And the discussion starting here:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-April/000472.html
>
> One distinction which has been made in discussions concerns who is
> paying for what, and who is profiting.

There are not many ways to make a profit on 'free content' (zero-rated)...

> Zero-rating a commercial
> service which pays the telecom for the privilege, might be regulated
> differently than zero-rating a non-profit service with no money
> changing hands.  (Does WP Zero actually pay any telecom to be
> zero-rated?)

So how are the telco's making money from WP Zero?

The main reason for ISPs to zero-rate content is because they want to
cache it to lower their interconnect / international traffic costs and
free up their outgoing pipes, and ideally keep their cache in sync
when their pipes are underutilised (i.e. refreshing mirrors when their
customer base is asleep.).  The other is because someone with deep
pockets turns up and asks please provide this content for free to your
customers in order to gain access to their customers and prevent
competitors starting up. (i.e. Google and Facebook)

As you say, WMF is not paying these telcos to shove WP down their
customers throats.
So, is WP Zero a caching mechanism?

If not, the Telcos are making a loss.
Why?

The concern wrt Telco's who are now in the ISP market, is they are
happy to spend a lot of money to erode the 'Internet' principle of
zero termination fees.  They would prefer to charge both 'ends' of
their pipes - content providers and content consumers - as that is
what Telco's are used to doing.

Packaging some content for free, and charging high prices for "the
real internet", encourages the practise of agreements between content
providers and telco's, which of course creates an internet that
favours large content providers and reduces the ability for new
competitors to enter the market.

While 'Wikimedia' is a non-profit, and no money changing hands, we
should be concerned about the long term effects that this will have on
other non-profit free content producers.  Do we want our peers in this
space to be having to negotiate with telco's around the world in order
to distribute their free content?

Along the lines of what what Jens Best is saying, I'll believe the
telco's goals are pure when I see them zero-rating Project Gutenberg,
and I'll be sceptical of the WMF's goals so long as it is only
'Wikipedia Zero', and not packaging into the 'zero-rated' agreement
the sister projects like Wiktionary and Commons especially, but also
Wikisource, etc, and ideally these telco's also agree to put the
database dumps on their mirrors too, zero-rated.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[James Salsman]

Rui Correia wrote:
>...
> tell me whether we are bleeding new or old members.

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editor_lifecycle

and

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editor_classes

agree: we lose experienced editors at about the same rate we always
have, but what plummeted after 2007 is the rate at which we attract
new editors. That's why there was so much enthusiasm for the Visual
Editor, but it was misplaced because being able to figure out wikitext
is an excellent attribute in new editors (analogously, being able to
figure out that wikitext has ambiguities equivalent to the halting
problem would have been an excellent attribute in VE architects)
None of the other technical solutions (Huggle, Wikilove, two click
thanking, etc.) have made a dent in the numbers, so it is time to
consider this the social problem that it is, and not just some
technical problem that can be coded around with a fancy new feature,
fewer bots, or addressed with nicer template warnings. Since the
typical editing tasks continue to transition from creating new
articles to maintaining the accuracy of old articles, that is even
more reason to want to attract highly educated editors who will be
able to overcome technical learning curves and social hurdles with
their own minds, not a Mediawiki extension.

Consider the supply and demand of both editors and their leisure time
by educational attainment:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/cognitive-surplus-visualized/

There is no shortage of new editors to attract. But how much free time
do those potential new editors have? For the typical highly educated
potential male editor, or the potential female editor of any
educational attainment level in the vast majority of the
English-speaking world, things have been getting a lot worse:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-31%20at%204.40.28%20PM.png

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-31%20at%201.43.10%20PM.png

(from 
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/how-did-work-life-balance-in-the-us-get-so-awful/276336/
in case those URLs expire)

These are all pertinent to whether strategic priorities should include
direct action to improve the extent of leisure time among highly
educated people in the developed world. Do that, and there will be
plenty of new Mediawiki and Wikidata extensions to choose from as
potential symbiotic solutions to both editor recruitment and the
transition from creation to maintenance. If I had more free time, I
would do this one:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_review

That is on topic, because if we had that feature, maintaining accuracy
would be a lot easier in that it would take less volunteer time. But I
don't think for a minute that any of the external strategic priorities
I've listed would do less if they came to fruition.

Best regards,
James Salsman

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Enock Seth Nyamador]

Interesting takes this, some of us are really learning something from you
it.

-Enock.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:00 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> AIUI, the Wikipedia Zero is mostly (not entirely, but mostly)
> happening in countries that completely do not have anything like net
> neutrality, and where Google and Facebook already subsidise access for
> their bytes. It would be nice if Wikimedia could work to strict
> neutrality rules in these contexts, but they're not actually that
> context.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Input needed: Cooperation with zoos?

[Daniel Mietchen]

That looks impressive, Balazs - thanks to the Hungarian community!

Daniel
--
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
http://okfn.org
http://wikimedia.org


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Balázs Viczián
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't heared any issues with animal treatment in Hungarian zoos
> (moreover the news I can recall reports continous improvement, like
> expanding getting renovated/modernised, etc.)
>
> I have no idea about the Serbian ones or the rest of the world.
>
> We've just completed a QR-project with a zoo in Hungary; it might be
> interesting for you.
>
> Find the documentation (google translator needed as it is in
> Hungarian-only) here:
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AMiskolc-m%C5%B1hely%2FGLAM-ZOO
>
> in short: 80 articles were (mostly significantly) improved plus 34 new
> created (114 articles in total) and the same number of QR codes put out and
> our cooperation won't stop here :)
>
> If you're concerned about animal treatment, think about something else
> then, for example botanical gardens :)
>
> Also a QRpedia project, also recently completed, but not finished (as the
> cooperation will continue beyond mainenance) with the country's largest and
> most prestigeous botanical garden and also Hungarian-only documentation:
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:N%C3%B6v%C3%A9nyek_m%C5%B1helye/V%C3%A1cr%C3%A1t%C3%B3t
>
> Both were conducted by Wikipedia project groups thus both had a team of
> editors behind them.
>
> Cheers,
> Balazs
> 2014.05.29. 23:45, "Milos Rancic"  ezt írta:
>
>> There is ongoing Microgrants project in Wikimedia Serbia. In brief, we
>> asked people to give us ideas, so we could talk about them. There are
>> some interesting ideas and a number of not so relevant.
>>
>> We've got the offer to cooperate with one of the zoos from Serbia. At
>> this moment of time, there is just their idea, nothing more precise.
>>
>> Before I proceed with the application (give suggestion to WMRS Board),
>> I want your input. In reality, I don't know that any zoo is perfect in
>> relation to the treatment of animals. In reality, it's likely
>> impossible to check that, as well as animal rights are not that well
>> protected in Serbia like the case is in, let's say, in the most of EU
>> countries.
>>
>> So, I am interested in prevalent opinion. What's more important to us:
>> free knowledge or not cooperating with an institution which likely has
>> issues with the treatment of animals -- the question is just about the
>> level.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Aaron Halfaker]

Hi Rui,

You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help address.
 I'm a research scientist working for the WMF.  My research focuses on the
nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
Wikipedia.  See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
on the subject.

As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
substantial portion of the questions you've raised.  See also my team's
work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5].  See [6] for an example of a
recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns.  Also,
you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
about the speed of speedy deletions.

A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
undocumented phenomena.  The academic community, other researchers at the
WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
and how they can be best supported.

While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
our goals and which ones do not.  See [8] and [9] for examples of such
studies.

I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
wiki-research-l[10].  There are a lot more researchers on that list than
wikimedia-l.  FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.

1. Summary:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
2. Full paper:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs
4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
5.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F
6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions
8.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout
9.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results
10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-Aaron



>
> > From: Rui Correia 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
> > Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >
> > Hi James
> >
> > Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
> > average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
> > months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?
> >
> > New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
> > developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy to
> > create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages by
> > new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing more
> > disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find
> that
> > someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates it
> > for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
> > version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk
> page.
> > I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was wrong.
> It
> > should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can improve/
> > fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like
> > WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a WP
> > policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where the
> new
> > editor can read about it. I know it is time-consuming to fill in edit
> > summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to a
> > whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a
> blank
> > edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text and you can select an
> > applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of the
> > page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like
> > splitting the field.
> >
> > No amount of ink about how welcoming WP is to new editors, IT IS NOT. For
> > reference, this section has some interesting facts,
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Contributors.
> >
> > We are also losing established editors, mostly because of edit warring.
> > There are blocks coalescing around all kinds of theme

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[David Gerard]

AIUI, the Wikipedia Zero is mostly (not entirely, but mostly)
happening in countries that completely do not have anything like net
neutrality, and where Google and Facebook already subsidise access for
their bytes. It would be nice if Wikimedia could work to strict
neutrality rules in these contexts, but they're not actually that
context.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[C. Scott Ananian]

This is a fascinating discussion, but one which has been addressed in
much greater depth elsewhere:
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neutrality+wikipedia+zero

It would indeed be interesting to hear EFF's take on the matter, which
does not appear to have been stated publicly yet.

Some related links:
http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/
see especially the first comment, which claims that "You[r] concept of
net neutrality is technically, and wildly incorrect. [...] Net
neutrality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with access. Especially
access for poor users. It has to do with service providers being
treated equally and fairly on the *infrastructure* that allows users
access to those services."  (I don't know if I actually agree with
this, but it's an interesting distinction.)

http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/

And the discussion starting here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-April/000472.html

One distinction which has been made in discussions concerns who is
paying for what, and who is profiting.  Zero-rating a commercial
service which pays the telecom for the privilege, might be regulated
differently than zero-rating a non-profit service with no money
changing hands.  (Does WP Zero actually pay any telecom to be
zero-rated?)
  --scott

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Jens Best]

Hi Marc,


your "arguments" aren't really factual, but rather emotional. But that's
fair enough.

"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as
"zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" - right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).

Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different
motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting for
free knowledge around the globe.

In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but where are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further
development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving free
access to free knowledge around the world?

I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected enough on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.


best regards

Jens Best




2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :

> On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> > A noble cause
> > doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
>
> In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously
> perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to
> educational resources for free to the world's least economically
> fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
>
> > It could be the time to start talking
> > globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble
> > initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating
> > countries/regions.
>
> So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you
> can't afford access?  Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some
> /other/ metric has been reached?
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best @wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Input needed: Cooperation with zoos?

[Balázs Viczián]

Hi,

I haven't heared any issues with animal treatment in Hungarian zoos
(moreover the news I can recall reports continous improvement, like
expanding getting renovated/modernised, etc.)

I have no idea about the Serbian ones or the rest of the world.

We've just completed a QR-project with a zoo in Hungary; it might be
interesting for you.

Find the documentation (google translator needed as it is in
Hungarian-only) here:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AMiskolc-m%C5%B1hely%2FGLAM-ZOO

in short: 80 articles were (mostly significantly) improved plus 34 new
created (114 articles in total) and the same number of QR codes put out and
our cooperation won't stop here :)

If you're concerned about animal treatment, think about something else
then, for example botanical gardens :)

Also a QRpedia project, also recently completed, but not finished (as the
cooperation will continue beyond mainenance) with the country's largest and
most prestigeous botanical garden and also Hungarian-only documentation:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:N%C3%B6v%C3%A9nyek_m%C5%B1helye/V%C3%A1cr%C3%A1t%C3%B3t

Both were conducted by Wikipedia project groups thus both had a team of
editors behind them.

Cheers,
Balazs
2014.05.29. 23:45, "Milos Rancic"  ezt írta:

> There is ongoing Microgrants project in Wikimedia Serbia. In brief, we
> asked people to give us ideas, so we could talk about them. There are
> some interesting ideas and a number of not so relevant.
>
> We've got the offer to cooperate with one of the zoos from Serbia. At
> this moment of time, there is just their idea, nothing more precise.
>
> Before I proceed with the application (give suggestion to WMRS Board),
> I want your input. In reality, I don't know that any zoo is perfect in
> relation to the treatment of animals. In reality, it's likely
> impossible to check that, as well as animal rights are not that well
> protected in Serbia like the case is in, let's say, in the most of EU
> countries.
>
> So, I am interested in prevalent opinion. What's more important to us:
> free knowledge or not cooperating with an institution which likely has
> issues with the treatment of animals -- the question is just about the
> level.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Chair of the Supervisory Board – the 14th WMDE General Assembly in retrospect

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Markus Glaser
> > >wrote:
> > > As we have more than 1 members now
> >
>
>
> > I did not realize WMDE had >1000 active members!
>
>
> While 1 > 1000 is true, I just want to stress that Markus said more
> than ten thousand members, which is an even more impressive number.
>
> This translates to 240,000 EUR coming annually from absolutely affordable
> membership fees. A very good foundation to build upon. Bravo WMDE!
>
>
Yes indeed - 10k members, where according to Markus 90% are supporting (pay
the member fee but don't participate). To me, that's great, but that there
are over 1000 people ("active members") who do or intend to participate in
chapter events is what I find astounding and an incredible accomplishment.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Chair of the Supervisory Board – the 14th WMDE General Assembly in retrospect

[Quim Gil]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Nathan  wrote:

> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Markus Glaser
> >wrote:
> > As we have more than 1 members now
>


> I did not realize WMDE had >1000 active members!


While 1 > 1000 is true, I just want to stress that Markus said more
than ten thousand members, which is an even more impressive number.

This translates to 240,000 EUR coming annually from absolutely affordable
membership fees. A very good foundation to build upon. Bravo WMDE!


-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Input needed: Cooperation with zoos?

[Daniel Mietchen]

Hi Milos,

I agree with Nemo that finding an additional non-zoo partner would be
a good thing and that it's worth having a close look at the project
with Sofia Zoo, which he linked in his post. Perhaps you could ask the
applicants to review that project and to outline similarities and
differences to theirs? I am available to review their application.

Daniel

--
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
http://okfn.org
http://wikimedia.org


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> Milos Rancic, 29/05/2014 23:44:
>
>> animal rights are not that well
>> protected in Serbia like the case is in, let's say, in the most of EU
>> countries.
>
>
> Surely they have some studies on what's their compliance with EU standards
> by now? Serbia is quite close to entering EU (if you forget Kosovo).
>
>
>>
>> So, I am interested in prevalent opinion. What's more important to us:
>> free knowledge or not cooperating with an institution which likely has
>> issues with the treatment of animals -- the question is just about the
>> level.
>
>
> That's definitely the biggest concern.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=6234463&oldid=5789546
> As for moral considerations, if you're unsure, outsource them: have a
> partnership with the zoo only if you can find an animalist/environmentalist
> association willing to join the effort. If you manage, you have an
> achievement before even starting, i.e. an ally for future initiatives like
> WikiLovesMonuments or education or whatever (examples made with Italian WWF
> and Legambiente in mind; no idea of the situation in Serbia).
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Wonderful! I look forward to hearing something in the next weeks.

> From: bdamo...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 00:18:02 +0200
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> 
> Hi Leigh,
> 
> Actually, we were discussing your group's application even before your
> writing here. I do apologize for the lack of communication or clarity,
> although there was no news to communicate.
> 
> In general, I would advise everyone to be bold in following the
> recommendation that is on the Meta page to send us a friendly reminder if
> they are waiting for us to respond. It helps us keep on top of things, and
> can speed up the process. (Bringing up the issue repeatedly on public
> mailing lists, and involving further WMF bodies usually slows down the
> process even if it might seem like a good idea, and even though it might
> actually be a good idea in a very small minority of cases.)
> 
> Best regards,
> Bence
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter 
> wrote:
> 
> > OK so then why no action, no communication until I write something
> > here?
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300
> > > From: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> > >
> > > Hi Leigh,
> > >
> > > As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more
> > > complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but
> > > the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it
> > > is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board
> > > on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do
> > > not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to
> > > recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there
> > > are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the
> > > communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is
> > > necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
> > >
> > > M.
> > >
> > > El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
> > > > We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year
> > now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This
> > seems to work a lot faster.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
> > > >> From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
> > > >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> > > >>
> > > >> As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki
> > Borregos
> > > >> application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on
> > this
> > > >> public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing
> > it
> > > >> actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
> > > >> welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
> > > >> process along.
> > > >>
> > > >> -greg
> > > >> ___
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > >
> > > --
> > > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > > Carlos M. Colina
> > > Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > > www.wikimedia.org.ve 
> > > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > > Twitter: @maor_x
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Bence Damokos]

Hi Leigh,

Actually, we were discussing your group's application even before your
writing here. I do apologize for the lack of communication or clarity,
although there was no news to communicate.

In general, I would advise everyone to be bold in following the
recommendation that is on the Meta page to send us a friendly reminder if
they are waiting for us to respond. It helps us keep on top of things, and
can speed up the process. (Bringing up the issue repeatedly on public
mailing lists, and involving further WMF bodies usually slows down the
process even if it might seem like a good idea, and even though it might
actually be a good idea in a very small minority of cases.)

Best regards,
Bence


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter 
wrote:

> OK so then why no action, no communication until I write something
> here?
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300
> > From: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> >
> > Hi Leigh,
> >
> > As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more
> > complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but
> > the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it
> > is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board
> > on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do
> > not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to
> > recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there
> > are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the
> > communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is
> > necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
> >
> > M.
> >
> > El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
> > > We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year
> now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This
> seems to work a lot faster.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
> > >> From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
> > >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> > >>
> > >> As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki
> Borregos
> > >> application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on
> this
> > >> public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing
> it
> > >> actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
> > >> welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
> > >> process along.
> > >>
> > >> -greg
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> >
> > --
> > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > Carlos M. Colina
> > Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > www.wikimedia.org.ve 
> > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > Twitter: @maor_x
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Input needed: Cooperation with zoos?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Milos Rancic, 29/05/2014 23:44:

animal rights are not that well
protected in Serbia like the case is in, let's say, in the most of EU
countries.


Surely they have some studies on what's their compliance with EU 
standards by now? Serbia is quite close to entering EU (if you forget 
Kosovo).




So, I am interested in prevalent opinion. What's more important to us:
free knowledge or not cooperating with an institution which likely has
issues with the treatment of animals -- the question is just about the
level.


That's definitely the biggest concern. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=6234463&oldid=5789546
As for moral considerations, if you're unsure, outsource them: have a 
partnership with the zoo only if you can find an 
animalist/environmentalist association willing to join the effort. If 
you manage, you have an achievement before even starting, i.e. an ally 
for future initiatives like WikiLovesMonuments or education or whatever 
(examples made with Italian WWF and Legambiente in mind; no idea of the 
situation in Serbia).


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Bence Damokos]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> other active GAC members given the
> relatively low bar required for UG status - we'll be paying way more
> attention at the details of the grant and the applicant(s) than on whether
> they have AffCom recognition.  I'd definitely rather give a grant to four
> well-established Wikimedians with no official status than four less
> well-established Wikimedians who happen to be a recognized user group all
> things being equal, and I suspect the same is true of other GAC members.
>  We definitely take people's previous histories in to account when
> considering whether or not to make a grant, but I don't think being an
> officially recognized user group would make a  group of people meaningfully
> more likely to get a grant than a group of people with an equivalent track
> record without that status.
>
> Although usually some form of history with the projects - or at least a
> strong endorsement from someone with a solid history with the projects - is
> needed to secure a sizable grant, we give out grants to individuals, groups
> of individuals that are not officially recognized, organizations aligned
> with our values that don't have Wikimedia affiliate status, and all kinds
> of other entities all the time, and I've never heard a GAC member express
> reservations about a particular grant based on whether or not a group of
> people were a recognized UG or not.  Moreover, I'd be pretty surprised to
> hear someone do so.
>
> We'd love to receive any and every solid proposal for a mission aligned
> grant, whether it comes from an individual, a group of three friends, a
> recognized usergroup, or a chapter or thorg that doesn't yet qualify for
> FDC funding (or that seeks funding for a project that the GAC can grant
> that the FDC can't - political advocacy is the only thing that comes to
> mind.) If anyone reading this who has a cool idea that can be facilitated
> by a PEG grant and advance the Wikimedia mission,  Please come visit us :)
>  We approve most grants that we deal with, and work hard with applicants to
>

Thanks Kevin with this explanation. I have a similar understanding of the
grantmaking landscape at Wikimedia.
There are groups, or individuals that every once in a while contact AffCom
that are not that aware of the realities of the grants process (i.e. that
only real projects get funded, but they do get funded regardless of
status). While they do not reach the stage of getting to the various grants
programmes, or being recognised as an affiliate, that does not mean they do
not exist.

Best regards,
Bence
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> A noble cause
> doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.

In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to
educational resources for free to the world's least economically
fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.

> It could be the time to start talking
> globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble
> initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating
> countries/regions.

So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you
can't afford access?  Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some
/other/ metric has been reached?

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Kevin Gorman]

Hi Bence -

I'd encourage you to not really factor in 'could this help someone get a
quick grant and run?' in to  your decisionmaking processes. The FDC
requires a multiyear track record of successful largescale program
implementation before considering a grant, and I'd think if a UG had that
strong a track record, their track record would speak for itself (actually,
are UG's eligible for FDC grants? I don't know offhand.)  The GAC doesn't
require any formal recognition whatsoever, and we've pretty regularly given
grants to individuals, groups of people with no official status,
mission-aligned but non-Wikimedia orgs, and all sorts of Wikimedia orgs.
 Speaking entirely for myself, I don't think that being a recognized UG (or
equally, not being one,) would effect my recommendation about whether or
not to approve a PEG grant whatsoever.

I suspect the same is true for most other active GAC members given the
relatively low bar required for UG status - we'll be paying way more
attention at the details of the grant and the applicant(s) than on whether
they have AffCom recognition.  I'd definitely rather give a grant to four
well-established Wikimedians with no official status than four less
well-established Wikimedians who happen to be a recognized user group all
things being equal, and I suspect the same is true of other GAC members.
 We definitely take people's previous histories in to account when
considering whether or not to make a grant, but I don't think being an
officially recognized user group would make a  group of people meaningfully
more likely to get a grant than a group of people with an equivalent track
record without that status.

Although usually some form of history with the projects - or at least a
strong endorsement from someone with a solid history with the projects - is
needed to secure a sizable grant, we give out grants to individuals, groups
of individuals that are not officially recognized, organizations aligned
with our values that don't have Wikimedia affiliate status, and all kinds
of other entities all the time, and I've never heard a GAC member express
reservations about a particular grant based on whether or not a group of
people were a recognized UG or not.  Moreover, I'd be pretty surprised to
hear someone do so.

We'd love to receive any and every solid proposal for a mission aligned
grant, whether it comes from an individual, a group of three friends, a
recognized usergroup, or a chapter or thorg that doesn't yet qualify for
FDC funding (or that seeks funding for a project that the GAC can grant
that the FDC can't - political advocacy is the only thing that comes to
mind.) If anyone reading this who has a cool idea that can be facilitated
by a PEG grant and advance the Wikimedia mission,  Please come visit us :)
 We approve most grants that we deal with, and work hard with applicants to
get grants in to approvable states if they aren't initially so:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG

Best,
Kevin Gorman


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Hi Leigh,
>
> As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more
> complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but
> the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it is
> with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board on your
> communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do not depend
> on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to recognize those
> groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there are two Board
> Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the communication between us
> has been read by them. I don't think is necessary to send two copies of the
> same e-mail to the same people :-)
>
> M.
>
> El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
>
>  We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year
>> now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This
>> seems to work a lot faster.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
>>> From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
>>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
>>>
>>> As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki
>>> Borregos
>>> application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
>>> public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
>>> actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
>>> welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
>>> process along.
>>>
>>> -greg
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Input needed: Cooperation with zoos?

[Milos Rancic]

There is ongoing Microgrants project in Wikimedia Serbia. In brief, we
asked people to give us ideas, so we could talk about them. There are
some interesting ideas and a number of not so relevant.

We've got the offer to cooperate with one of the zoos from Serbia. At
this moment of time, there is just their idea, nothing more precise.

Before I proceed with the application (give suggestion to WMRS Board),
I want your input. In reality, I don't know that any zoo is perfect in
relation to the treatment of animals. In reality, it's likely
impossible to check that, as well as animal rights are not that well
protected in Serbia like the case is in, let's say, in the most of EU
countries.

So, I am interested in prevalent opinion. What's more important to us:
free knowledge or not cooperating with an institution which likely has
issues with the treatment of animals -- the question is just about the
level.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

OK so then why no action, no communication until I write something here?

> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300
> From: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> 
> Hi Leigh,
> 
> As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more 
> complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but 
> the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it 
> is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board 
> on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do 
> not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to 
> recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there 
> are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the 
> communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is 
> necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
> 
> M.
> 
> El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
> > We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. 
> > This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This 
> > seems to work a lot faster.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
> >> From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> >>
> >> As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
> >> application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
> >> public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
> >> actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
> >> welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
> >> process along.
> >>
> >> -greg
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> >> 
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
> www.wikimedia.org.ve 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> zero-rating a special service or a certain website on you mobile contract
> is a clever way to undermine net neutrality, even when it comes as such a
> noble service to give free knowledge to the people.
>
> Free knowledge of the leading global encyclopedia is surely connected with
> a totally different approach as, let's say, a certain music-streaming
> website which is included zero-rated in a mobile contract, but
> nethertheless it is way to undermine/break net neutrality. A noble cause
> doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
>
> There is already a discussion in the community about the prospective
> complex of problems with zero-rating as an icebreaker for introducing
> different price tags on data. It could be the time to start talking
> globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble
> initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating
> countries/regions.
>
> best regards
>
> Jens Best
>
>
It would be interesting to hear where the EFF stands on this. I think
Wikipedia Zero is a great and awesome initiative, greatly outweighing the
possible net neutrality undermining, but I appreciate the concern.

--Martijn


>
> 2014-05-29 23:02 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
>
> > On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> > > another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the
> > > telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
> >
> > I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there
> > is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provider from zero-rating
> > Wikipedia.  Net neutrality doesn't even enter into it.
> >
> > What *does* enter into it, however, is that literally /millions/ more
> > people now have free access to Wikipedia that could not before afford it.
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jens Best
> Präsidium
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
> mail: jens.best @wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Jens Best]

Hi Marc,

zero-rating a special service or a certain website on you mobile contract
is a clever way to undermine net neutrality, even when it comes as such a
noble service to give free knowledge to the people.

Free knowledge of the leading global encyclopedia is surely connected with
a totally different approach as, let's say, a certain music-streaming
website which is included zero-rated in a mobile contract, but
nethertheless it is way to undermine/break net neutrality. A noble cause
doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.

There is already a discussion in the community about the prospective
complex of problems with zero-rating as an icebreaker for introducing
different price tags on data. It could be the time to start talking
globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble
initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating
countries/regions.

best regards

Jens Best


2014-05-29 23:02 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :

> On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> > another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the
> > telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
>
> I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there
> is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provider from zero-rating
> Wikipedia.  Net neutrality doesn't even enter into it.
>
> What *does* enter into it, however, is that literally /millions/ more
> people now have free access to Wikipedia that could not before afford it.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best @wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FW: Edit #1 and Challenge #1 - user privacy

[ENWP Pine]

I was contacted off-list about this situation by someone who wants to remain 
anonymous but has given me permission to forward their input to the list. I am 
not a copyright expert and this isn't professional legal advice. It would be 
interesting to hear what WMF Legal thinks about republishing emails, both from 
the privacy angle and the copyright angle.

Thanks,

Pine



Pine, why not just suggest she invite respondents to adopt a free license, 
instead of reinventing the wheel? Like..."I'd like to have the right to 
republish these stories, but it's up to the respondents. If you're willing, 
please explicitly state that you release these under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license; 
or, if you'd rather not be identified, under the CC-0 license."


We have these tools for a reason :)   
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the
> telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.

I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there
is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provider from zero-rating
Wikipedia.  Net neutrality doesn't even enter into it.

What *does* enter into it, however, is that literally /millions/ more
people now have free access to Wikipedia that could not before afford it.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[rupert THURNER]

another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the
telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality. and another day
where wikimedia foundation helps driving an illegal practice according
european and brazilian laws :(

for the ones in the US, read and file here comments for / against net
neutrality:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28
https://www.fcc.gov/comments

just picked two arbitrary of the 47'000 comments alone in the last 30 days:

colin farell:
There is nothing quite like trampling on the common citizen to advanced the
interests of large corporations. Killing net neutrality is a horrible idea, that
hurts consumer interest. I would like to see the FCC act in the
interest of people
not massive corporations.

timothy ford:
Your website URL is FCC.gov. Do you know why it ends in "Dot" "GOV"?
It is because
your organization is part of the government of the United States of
America. This
governing body is made up of our peers that we have voted into office
to serve the
better good of the public. Your current actions do not reflect what is
good for the
public, our freedoms, and our rights. Your actions endanger the very
nature of the
internet. Freedom of speech in the purest kind. Where no voice can be silenced.
Where a single voice can grow into a thousand screams for justice and overthrow
cruel governments as we have seen in the Arab Spring. You are being
brought to your
knees by greedy Corporations whose sole purpose is to enrich
themselves. You have
let yourselves bend to their will. And by doing so ignore your primary
objective.
SERVE THE PEOPLE. You have failed for the last time. You failed to
investigate the
claims of illegal wiretapping by the NSA (and by doing so failed to protect our
freedoms). You have failed us again by letting greed supersede what is right and
just. I hereby call for the complete deconstruction of the FCC. You
are incapable of
doing, or listening, to the will of the people who not only pay for
your checks, but
you are under oath to protect. Therefore you serve no purpose. Let me
remind you of
your original charter which you have clearly forgotten.
"regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire
and radio so as
to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a
rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service
with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"

rupert


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> (This press release is also available online here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Airtel_Offers_Nigerians_Free_Access_to_Wikipedia
>  )
>
> *Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*
>
>- *Customers to Access Multilingual Content Free of Data Charges*
>- *Restates Commitment to Educational Development, Youth Empowerment*
>
> *Lagos, Nigeria, Thursday, May 29th, 2014*: Leading telecommunications
> services provider, Airtel Nigeria, has announced a strategic partnership
> with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, to
> offer their consumers across the country access to Wikipedia through their
> mobile phones free of data charges.
>
> The initiative, which is first of its kind in Nigeria, is dubbed Wikipedia
> Zero, and it is aimed at reaching and empowering billions of people around
> the world whose access to the Internet is primarily through a mobile
> device. Airtel Nigeria subscribers can access Wikipedia free of data
> charges at m.wikipedia.org.
>
> With the new partnership, Airtel will help deliver knowledge and
> information of Wikipedia to 21 million of new users in the West African
> region. Speaking on the new partnership, Chief Commercial Officer, Airtel
> Nigeria, Maurice Newa, said the initiative is in line with the company’s
> corporate vision of becoming Nigeria’s number one Internet Company, saying
> the new service will help connect Nigerians with relevant knowledge and
> information that will empower them to succeed in their personal and
> professional endeavors.
>
> “We are excited with our partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and we
> will continue to provide innovative solutions that will uplift Nigerians in
> line with our brand promise of becoming the most loved brand in the daily
> lives of Nigerians,” he said. “At Airtel, we are passionate and committed
> to creating solid educational and youth empowerment platforms that will
> enrich and transform the lives of telecoms consumers across the country.”
>
> “We commend Airtel Nigeria for taking a leadership role in empowering their
> society through information access, and we’re thrilled to partner with
> them,” said Carolynne Schloeder, Head of Mobile Partnerships at the
> Wikimedia Foundation. “Expanding Wikipedia Zero to the people of Nigeria is
> a big step forward for free knowledge in Africa.”
>
>
> About Bharti Airtel
>
> Bharti Airtel Limited is a leading global telecommunicat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1 - user privacy

[ENWP Pine]

Hi Nathan, what you're describing is an opt-out practice. I believe that the
practice should be opt-in.

Take this with a grain of salt. I participate in some grantmaking and 
administrative
groups and I err on the side of privacy, but I'm fairly confident that the 
Privacy
Policy applies in this case and that the practice should be opt-in for 
republication,
even if not explicitly required by policy, because it's the more conservative 
and 
more courteous approach. In general this community is conservative about
privacy issues, although we are also interested in transparency, which makes
for an interesting mix of priorities.

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1 - user privacy

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> Hi Lila,
>
> My read of the *new* Privacy Policy is that nonpublic emails sent
> to WMF should remain nonpublic unless the user gives consent to the
> contrary. The policy states that "We may share your information for a
> particular purpose, if you agree." Otherwise emails are considered
> personal information and their redistribution is restricted. See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#share-to-experiment
> and
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information
>
> So, please do not take the view that "Otherwise, we will consider them
> public" if you do not hear back from someone who has contacted you.
>
> The general practice in the community is that emails are considered private
> by default.
>
> "Private" doesn't mean absolutely private, for example it's common for
> members of certain committees to circulate emails among themselves,
> but those emails don't usually get forwarded outside of the group or
> republished without opt-in permission from the sender. Similarly, WMF
> may circulate emails internally.
>
> User privacy is a big deal in this community. Perhaps you know more
> about the Privacy Policy than I do, but my understanding is that your
> announced plans are inconsistent with the current and draft policies.
> Fortunately, that is easy to fix in this situation.
>
> I am glad you have taken an interest in the experiences of new editors. (:
>
> Pine
>
>
>
Let's not be so quick to criticize; Lila's e-mail is the invitation to
participate. By responding to her prompt and not asking for your comments
to be private, you agree with the solicitation that the comments be public.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Tilman Bayer]

(This press release is also available online here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Airtel_Offers_Nigerians_Free_Access_to_Wikipedia
 )

*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*

   - *Customers to Access Multilingual Content Free of Data Charges*
   - *Restates Commitment to Educational Development, Youth Empowerment*

*Lagos, Nigeria, Thursday, May 29th, 2014*: Leading telecommunications
services provider, Airtel Nigeria, has announced a strategic partnership
with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, to
offer their consumers across the country access to Wikipedia through their
mobile phones free of data charges.

The initiative, which is first of its kind in Nigeria, is dubbed Wikipedia
Zero, and it is aimed at reaching and empowering billions of people around
the world whose access to the Internet is primarily through a mobile
device. Airtel Nigeria subscribers can access Wikipedia free of data
charges at m.wikipedia.org.

With the new partnership, Airtel will help deliver knowledge and
information of Wikipedia to 21 million of new users in the West African
region. Speaking on the new partnership, Chief Commercial Officer, Airtel
Nigeria, Maurice Newa, said the initiative is in line with the company’s
corporate vision of becoming Nigeria’s number one Internet Company, saying
the new service will help connect Nigerians with relevant knowledge and
information that will empower them to succeed in their personal and
professional endeavors.

“We are excited with our partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and we
will continue to provide innovative solutions that will uplift Nigerians in
line with our brand promise of becoming the most loved brand in the daily
lives of Nigerians,” he said. “At Airtel, we are passionate and committed
to creating solid educational and youth empowerment platforms that will
enrich and transform the lives of telecoms consumers across the country.”

“We commend Airtel Nigeria for taking a leadership role in empowering their
society through information access, and we’re thrilled to partner with
them,” said Carolynne Schloeder, Head of Mobile Partnerships at the
Wikimedia Foundation. “Expanding Wikipedia Zero to the people of Nigeria is
a big step forward for free knowledge in Africa.”


About Bharti Airtel

Bharti Airtel Limited is a leading global telecommunications company with
operations in 20 countries across Asia and Africa. Headquartered in New
Delhi, India, the company ranks amongst the top 4 mobile service providers
globally in terms of subscribers. In India, the company's product offerings
include 2G, 3G and 4G wireless services, mobile commerce, fixed line
services, high speed DSL broadband, IPTV, DTH, enterprise services
including national & international long distance services to carriers. In
the rest of the geographies, it offers 2G, 3G wireless services and mobile
commerce. Bharti Airtel had over 297 million customers across its
operations at the end of April 2014. To know more please visit,
www.airtel.com


About the Wikimedia Foundation

http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://wikipediazero.org
http://blog.wikimedia.org

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive 500 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most
popular web property world-wide (comScore, August 2013). Available in 287
languages, Wikipedia contains more than 29 million articles contributed by
a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San
Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3)
charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:

Communications, Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 ext 6633 jwa...@wikimedia.org

(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply 
with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)___
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/29/2014 03:21 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> *Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*

Yeay!  Grats Zero team for yet another victory bringing Free knowledge
to all people!

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Carlos M. Colina]

Hi Leigh,

As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more 
complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but 
the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it 
is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board 
on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do 
not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to 
recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there 
are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the 
communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is 
necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)


M.

El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:

We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. This 
is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This seems to work 
a lot faster.




Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
process along.

-greg
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Carlos M. Colina
Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Bence Damokos]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
>> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
>> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>>
>
> Thanks Sam - your thinking is always refreshing.
>
> I believe, I and Greg have mentioned a few examples without naming names,
> but in general, the question we ask is whether a group is genuine (i.e. are
> they who they say they are; are they part of the Wikimedia community), do
> they mean well (i.e. do they want to make a quick buck with the name or
> some quick grant and disappear, or are they genuinely trying to further the
> mission), and often can they be a constructive part of the movement (a sort
> of human, interpersonal factor that takes more time to ascertain where
> groups that have relationships with other groups or where they have
> "non-standard" relationships with us).
>
> Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user
> groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined,
> but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has
> been a "history". Defining this requirement and whether any "non-standard"
> (as compared to existing examples) group meets the requirement creates a
> whole  meta process in each process where by executing the process we are
> defining what the outcome (i.e. user groups) are supposed to be. I wish
> this could be a one man job, as there would be so much more agreement, but
> perhaps the results would be less optimal than when we rely on the
> consensus of a committee with years of experience and a multitude of
> viewpoints.
>
> In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into
> the process, the better. Unfortunately, those that are first in some way,
> will have to live through the meta process while we check the boxes, but
> they get to write history the same way supreme court cases do :)
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1 - user privacy

[ENWP Pine]

Hi Lila,

My read of the *new* Privacy Policy is that nonpublic emails sent 
to WMF should remain nonpublic unless the user gives consent to the 
contrary. The policy states that "We may share your information for a 
particular purpose, if you agree." Otherwise emails are considered 
personal information and their redistribution is restricted. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#share-to-experiment
and 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information

So, please do not take the view that "Otherwise, we will consider them 
public" if you do not hear back from someone who has contacted you.

The general practice in the community is that emails are considered private
by default.

"Private" doesn't mean absolutely private, for example it's common for
members of certain committees to circulate emails among themselves,
but those emails don't usually get forwarded outside of the group or 
republished without opt-in permission from the sender. Similarly, WMF
may circulate emails internally.

User privacy is a big deal in this community. Perhaps you know more
about the Privacy Policy than I do, but my understanding is that your
announced plans are inconsistent with the current and draft policies. 
Fortunately, that is easy to fix in this situation.

I am glad you have taken an interest in the experiences of new editors. (:

Pine



Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:22:21 -0800
From: Lila Tretikov 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
 
All,
 
It'd be wonderful to be able to share these stories publicly in the future.
I'm going to reach out to those who have already shared their experiences
with me to confirm they're comfortable with sharing. If you're not
comfortable with sharing your story, or want to withhold your name, please
let me know in your email. Otherwise, we will consider them public, so we
can build on your experiences and share them widely!
 
Thank you!
Lila  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Bence Damokos]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>

Thanks Sam - your thinking is always refreshing.

I believe, I and Greg have mentioned a few examples without naming names,
but in general, the question we ask is whether a group is genuine (i.e. are
they who they say they are; are they part of the Wikimedia community), do
they mean well (i.e. do they want to make a quick buck with the name or
some quick grant and disappear, or are they genuinely trying to further the
mission), and often can they be a constructive part of the movement (a sort
of human, interpersonal factor that takes more time to ascertain where
groups that have relationships with other groups or where they have
"non-standard" relationships with us).

Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user
groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined,
but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has
been a "history". Defining this requirement and whether any "non-standard"
(as compared to existing examples) group meets the requirement creates a
whole  meta process in each process where by executing the process we are
defining what the outcome (i.e. user groups) are supposed to be. I wish
this could be a one man job, as there would be so much more agreement, but
perhaps the results would be less optimal then when we rely on the
consensus of a committee with years of experience and a multitude of
viewpoints.

In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into
the process, the better. Unfortunately, those that are first in some way,
will have to live through the meta process while we check the boxes, but
they get to write history the same way supreme court cases do :)

Best regards,
Bence
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Carlos M. Colina]

Hi Sam,


El 29/05/2014 10:18 p.m., Sam Klein escribió:

Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.


It looks like the main steps are

a) appointing a liaison
b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)

with an optional step of
d) reviewing bylaws

Nathan's idea is a good one.  LangCom does something like this for
handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
never exercised) to override over the next few days.


Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:

0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.

1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.

By sending an e-mail, any group becomes an affiliate-to-be :)


2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
the liaison.  They can approve the group, recommend it for further
review, or reject it as incomplete.


We generally rotate who takes care of the next incoming request, in 
order to balance the workload among all members. We don't want one 
member handling 7 applications at the same time, when there is one with 
just one (unless the case becomes extremely thorny), right?


3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
discussion by the committee.


We try as much as possible to shorten the discussion phase, but it is 
important to gather any concerns that may arise. Sometimes I can see an 
application as ready-to-go, but then you see something that I missed, 
and which is indeed worth analyzing further.


3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
result (approve or reject) and the reviewer.  This can be done in
batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
As far as I remember, we have not received more than three applications 
on a same day.


3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
liaison.

They do :)

This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
the original goal.  I know that we currently require separately 4)
signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
uses to groups that have been approved.


I don't think this can be done in those originally expected 15 minutes :-)

Please remember this is all in an ideal situation, as Bence put it 
correctly, and that much of the time between each one of the steps taken 
can vary depending on how fast the affiliates-to-be respond, the time 
the volunteer making part of the AffCom takes, and so on. Again, we 
always try to shorten it as much as possible.




A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
process, as far as I can see.  AffCom can separately engage groups to
help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.


Having bylaws is not mandatory for UGs as they do not need to 
incoporate. However, if they plan to do so upon recognition, it is worth 
reviewing them. Also, in some geographic jurisdictions, they need to 
incorporate, so that should be done in parallel in those cases.

Regards,
Sam

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

Hi Sam,

If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
available at the time of application).

However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
the whole AffCom.
After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.

As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg

Best regards,
Bence

P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
"Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:


Quick question:


The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
process to be shortened to a few weeks.

When the user group m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy (also relevant to "A personal note")

[Keegan Peterzell]

Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone...

Mike, this was one of the best emails to this list I've read in a long
time.  As someone who has squabbled with you on mailing lists, it's even
better to me.

Take care,  sir.

~ Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
On May 29, 2014 5:53 AM, "Mike Godwin"  wrote:

> Hi, Wil (and greetings to all my Wikimedian friends here!).
>
> I've been catching up on the Wikimedia-L threads, and of course I've
> come across your many postings and your engagement, sometimes tense,
> with other posters here. I have some sympathy for your reactions and
> questions: I've had some similar experiences myself, dating in
> particular from the first year I served on WMF's staff as general
> counsel. My own experience was colored by the fact that I knew my
> intentions were good, I was reasonably certain I was a smart, even
> sociable guy, and so why was it that some significant portion of what
> I posted generated friction on what was supposed to be an inclusive,
> Assume-Good-Faith mailing list?
>
> I think I realized reasonably quickly that, precisely because I
> assumed my own good faith, I wasn't always alert to my cultural
> missteps, even though I knew at an intellectual level that this
> mailing list, unlike some others, is a community. For a community,
> when a new individual appears out of "nowhere" and begins to assert
> himself or herself, and launches into extended criticisms of so many
> things he (or she) encounters, the natural, human reaction is not to
> automatically embrace the newcomer for his or her contributions to
> diversity and insight, but instead to wonder, "Hey, why hasn't he made
> the effort to learn about our history and traditions and norms and
> expectations?"  *This phenomenon is entirely human and normal*, but it
> still sometimes requires a bit of a bumpy transition, even if you know
> (intellectually, at least) to expect it.
>
> So, what I'm suggesting is, when you respond by trying to call
> attention to the friction your (comparatively) abrupt dive into this
> community has generated for you, what you may be calling attention to
> is not something pathological about a mailing list but instead just a
> part of the human condition. If you're patient, you can take a breath
> or two, maybe even a short break, and come back to the list and give
> as much attention to the issues and problems for the Wikimedia
> movement as you like, and over time get better reactions/reception.
>
> My own experience was that, over time, most Wikimedians had a chance
> to observe my commitment as a Wikimedian, and in my role as WMF's
> lawyer, to protect and advance the projects with the same fierceness
> with which I sometimes, particularly early on, expressed my opinions
> on the mailing lists and on the wikis. No doubt the potential is there
> for you to have the same experience.
>
> There is one important, though, between your experience and mine, and
> if I were in your position I would give it some thought. Specifically,
> your partner is only ever going to have one first month, and only one
> first year, as the new executive director of WMF. If I were in your
> position, I would give her as much breathing space and community
> mindshare as I could to create her own first impressions, to find her
> own themes, and to set the tone for her long-term role as executive
> director. I might even take a month off with regard to participating
> in public discussions -- *even though I wouldn't have to, and even
> though some of the reactions to what I'd written seem unfair to me* --
> just to let my partner establish her own role without any distractions
> I might cause. Lila's job is tough and challenging, and she will need
> all the support she can get. You may find that one way you can support
> her in the very near term is to step away from tense exchanges (or
> maybe all public exchanges on the lists) for a while -- even though
> you may feel, with some sense of righteousness, that you shouldn't
> have to do this.
>
> I agree that in an ideal world you shouldn't have to. But in the human
> world we live in, if I were in your position, I'd give this approach a
> month or so, just as an exercise, and as a way of showing support for
> my partner's taking the reins of an unusually difficult, but also
> culturally unique enterprise.
>
> You haven't solicited my advice on any of this, of course. But I hope
> you appreciate that you're hearing it from someone who himself has
> been outspoken on the lists, who is sometimes critical of community
> responses and norms, who has been publicly criticized from time to
> time,  but who also has found that it's really helpful, especially in
> the earliest days of engagement with a new community, to listen as
> much as talk. I think of myself as a Wikimedian, and my ongoing
> engagement with the movement and the community is one of general
> respect and regard, even when I disagree with their consensus, as I
> frequently 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Bad usage of money in Brazil

[Lila Tretikov]

Rodrigo -- what do the bubbles represent in the chart -- countries?


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Pine,
>
> For me, this is just a small and visible part of the iceberg, sadly.
> I not will go deeper in that, because I do not have stomach for, patiences,
> and way to do that.
>
> I already send massages to Asaf pointing this, in respect. But thanks for
> the tip.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> On 22 May 2014 03:52, ENWP Pine  wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Rodrigo,
> >
> > Thank you for these questions. There have been questions about the India
> > program as well, so these questions about Brazil can be added to the list
> > of
> > issues for WMF to investigate.
> >
> > I am not personally familiar with either of the Brazil or India catalyst
> > programs,
> > but I suggest that you contact Asaf or Anasuya if you don't get a
> response
> > on this list or on the discussion page within two days.
> >
> > Thank you again for bringing up these questions.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
> +55 11 979 718 884
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. This 
is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This seems to work 
a lot faster.



> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
> From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> 
> As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
> application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
> public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
> actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
> welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
> process along.
> 
> -greg
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Gregory Varnum]

As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
process along.

-greg
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Gregory Varnum]

SJ,

Aside from the questions being on Meta (which they soon will), and the
one-person authority - this is very close to the process we are working
from now.

Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone is
assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or
doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a resolution,
and we vote.

Realistically, getting a response to the questions is oddly a much
lengthier process than I would have imagined. We usually try to wait for
confirmation before we post announcements of approvals on-lists, and some
groups do not consider themselves approved until the legal paperwork is
signed. I am working on some Meta-wiki based forms (similar to what grants
does) to allow folks to start the process there rather than via email.

-greg


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>
>
> It looks like the main steps are
>
> a) appointing a liaison
> b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
> c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
>
> with an optional step of
> d) reviewing bylaws
>
> Nathan's idea is a good one.  LangCom does something like this for
> handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
> informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
> never exercised) to override over the next few days.
>
>
> Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
>
> 0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
> apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
>
> 1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
>
> 2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
> the liaison.  They can approve the group, recommend it for further
> review, or reject it as incomplete.
>
> 3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
> discussion by the committee.
>
> 3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
> result (approve or reject) and the reviewer.  This can be done in
> batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
> email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
>
> 3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
> liaison.
>
> This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
> the original goal.  I know that we currently require separately 4)
> signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
> simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
> uses to groups that have been approved.
>
>
> A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
> process, as far as I can see.  AffCom can separately engage groups to
> help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
>
> Regards,
> Sam
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> by
> > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> under
> > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> being
> > available at the time of application).
> >
> > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > the whole AffCom.
> > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> for
> > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> >
> > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> >> Quick question:
> >>
> >> > The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
> >> > process to be shortened to a few weeks.
> >>
> >> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
> >> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
> >>
> >> Sam
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early
in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process'
time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they
are and what they want to do.That has not been our (Wiki Borregos) experience. 
In fact, responses from AffComm have been quite negative even though we have 
been very active and very clear on who we are and what we do. We have been 
stuck with"its complicated" since last year.





> From: bdamo...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:18:24 +0200
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> 
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sam,
> > >
> > > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> > by
> > > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> > under
> > > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> > being
> > > available at the time of application).
> > >
> > > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > > the whole AffCom.
> > > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> > for
> > > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> > >
> > > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bence
> > >
> > > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> > >
> > >
> > Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
> > If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
> > be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
> > consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
> > individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
> > distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
> >
> Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is  lead by
> the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the
> case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any
> ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the
> process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.
> 
> In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved
> as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee
> that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most
> issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do
> the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some
> time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long
> term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or
> padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going
> to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time.
> 
> (One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early
> in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process'
> time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they
> are and what they want to do.
> And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not
> necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities
> inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This
> means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g.
>  if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if
> there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next
> evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes,
> and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set
> ourselves.)
> 
> 
> Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the
> previous e-mail, which is as of now  non-narrated, but part of the project
> to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric
> to aim for and improve over time.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bence
> 
> 
> ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Lila Tretikov]

Thanks so much Leigh -- when you do this please let me know if it is OK to
share publicly. We will be using these to learn about how to best improve
the UX.

L


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter 
wrote:

> Ok! I have a training session with Tec de Monterrey students doing
> community service on Sat. This will be part of their introduction!
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:24:33 -0700
> > From: l...@wikimedia.org
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1
> >
> > I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
> > it is:
> >
> > Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> > first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
> > better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> > natural.
> >
> > I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
> > used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
> > the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went
> pretty
> > smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
> > in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and
> for
> > our team.
> >
> > Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a
> kid
> > making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> >
> > So now I have a challenge back to you:
> >
> >
> >- Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
> >- Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
> >- Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
> >- Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> >
> >
> > Thank you!!!
> > Lila
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Lila Tretikov]

All,

It'd be wonderful to be able to share these stories publicly in the future.
I'm going to reach out to those who have already shared their experiences
with me to confirm they're comfortable with sharing. If you're not
comfortable with sharing your story, or want to withhold your name, please
let me know in your email. Otherwise, we will consider them public, so we
can build on your experiences and share them widely!

Thank you!
Lila


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Victor Grigas 
wrote:

> Here's the link to that video:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Editing_makes_me_feel_stupid.ogv
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Steven Zhang  wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a great way to get insight from our new editors :)
> >
> > If video reactions are desired, I think at one point we (WMF) videoed
> > people that had never edited before, try and edit with the source code
> > editor, and they described their experience after. Might also be helpful
> in
> > addition to this. I recall viewing it during Sue's Wikimania keynote in
> > Hong Kong.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 29 May 2014, at 6:24 pm, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> > >
> > > I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help.
> Here
> > > it is:
> > >
> > > Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> > > first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I
> can
> > > better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> > > natural.
> > >
> > > I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk
> pages. I
> > > used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I
> had
> > > the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went
> > pretty
> > > smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did
> stumble
> > > in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and
> > for
> > > our team.
> > >
> > > Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a
> > kid
> > > making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> > >
> > > So now I have a challenge back to you:
> > >
> > >
> > >   - Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
> > >   - Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
> > >   - Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
> > >   - Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you!!!
> > > Lila
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Victor Grigas*
> Storyteller 
> Wikimedia Foundation
> vgri...@wikimedia.org
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Gregory Varnum]

We are moving toward a process that involves 1-2 people primarily and then
a full vote by the committee (which right now procedurally takes one week).

From my perspective, the delays are often related to confusion over the
process, or failure to actually initiate things with AffCom. We have about
a dozen groups in discussion, but who have not yet made contact with
AffCom. Sometimes people are timid or confused about taking the first step
of saying "I (or we) are the contacts for this group and here is what we
would like to do." We are looking into that more and working on some
solutions. I think right now a lot of the problem is related to perceptions
over the process and doubts over the value of completing it (as simple as
it may be). Sometimes it has been a matter as simple as finalizing the
wording of the user group agreement, which gets better each time based on
the feedback and efforts to address the needs.

If the process had no checks or balances, a few groups would have already
been approved that would have been problematic and the desire has been to
avoid the need to retract recognition of a group. As we know - once
something is out there - it is very hard to pull back. We are trying to
find the right balance between providing the right resources and
motivations for becoming a user group - and prevent abuse of the process
which could then lower the perceived value of the user group model - and
potentially the Wikimedia brand. The discussion around the logo is one
example of trying to find that balance. The groups would like some equality
around usage of the trademarks, and the chapters/thorgs would like some
protection of the brand to not harm them when there are geographical
overlaps - and also not burden the user groups with the same
responsibilities of the chapters/thorgs in regards to media relations.

My personal hunch is that the more user groups that apply, the more we will
discover the hurdles and overcome them - which will improve the process
overall. I think what is most helpful is to ask for some patience while we
try to address concerns and figure out the quickest possible process - but
encourage as many interested groups to come forward as possible. It is
through those discussions that we are learning the most and best able to
find solutions. Really, my biggest request, would be for interested user
groups to contact us and officially ask to become a user group - the more -
the better in my humble opinion. Don't worry about the Meta pages or
whatever, we will help with that, just contact us (
aff...@lists.wikimedia.org) and get the process going.

We are also trying to improve the documentation, communication, and
marketing of the different models. I think a lot of people do not really
understand that we intend for it to be a simple process, and that it is NOT
the same as the chapter or ThOrg process. Some of that confusion is because
a lot of the early applicants hope to one day become a chapter or ThOrg, so
that has externally come off as a more thorough process. We are already
trying to make things like the AffCom page easier to navigate and more
visually appealing. Basically we are following Grants Dept's lead and
Heather W's example.  :)  Right now the user group page looks complicated
and confusing - hopefully that will change soon. Here are some examples of
where we are moving toward:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Twitter
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

That is my perspective and opinion - others on the committee may see it
differently.  :)

-greg aka varnent


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> by
> > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> under
> > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> being
> > available at the time of application).
> >
> > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > the whole AffCom.
> > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> for
> > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> >
> > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, whic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Bence Damokos]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> by
> > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> under
> > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> being
> > available at the time of application).
> >
> > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > the whole AffCom.
> > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> for
> > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> >
> > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> >
> >
> Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
> If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
> be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
> consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
> individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
> distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
>
Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is  lead by
the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the
case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any
ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the
process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.

In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved
as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee
that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most
issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do
the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some
time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long
term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or
padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going
to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time.

(One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early
in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process'
time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they
are and what they want to do.
And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not
necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities
inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This
means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g.
 if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if
there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next
evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes,
and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set
ourselves.)


Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the
previous e-mail, which is as of now  non-narrated, but part of the project
to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric
to aim for and improve over time.

Best regards,
Bence


___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Sam Klein]

Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.


It looks like the main steps are

a) appointing a liaison
b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)

with an optional step of
d) reviewing bylaws

Nathan's idea is a good one.  LangCom does something like this for
handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
never exercised) to override over the next few days.


Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:

0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.

1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.

2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
the liaison.  They can approve the group, recommend it for further
review, or reject it as incomplete.

3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
discussion by the committee.

3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
result (approve or reject) and the reviewer.  This can be done in
batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.

3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
liaison.

This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
the original goal.  I know that we currently require separately 4)
signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
uses to groups that have been approved.


A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
process, as far as I can see.  AffCom can separately engage groups to
help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.

Regards,
Sam

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
> a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
> ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
> available at the time of application).
>
> However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> the whole AffCom.
> After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
> at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
>
> As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> Quick question:
>>
>> > The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
>> > process to be shortened to a few weeks.
>>
>> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
>> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
> a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
> ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
> available at the time of application).
>
> However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> the whole AffCom.
> After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
> at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
>
> As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
>
>
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Victor Grigas]

Here's the link to that video:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Editing_makes_me_feel_stupid.ogv


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Steven Zhang  wrote:

> Sounds like a great way to get insight from our new editors :)
>
> If video reactions are desired, I think at one point we (WMF) videoed
> people that had never edited before, try and edit with the source code
> editor, and they described their experience after. Might also be helpful in
> addition to this. I recall viewing it during Sue's Wikimania keynote in
> Hong Kong.
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 29 May 2014, at 6:24 pm, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
> > it is:
> >
> > Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> > first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
> > better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> > natural.
> >
> > I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
> > used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
> > the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went
> pretty
> > smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
> > in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and
> for
> > our team.
> >
> > Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a
> kid
> > making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> >
> > So now I have a challenge back to you:
> >
> >
> >   - Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
> >   - Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
> >   - Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
> >   - Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> >
> >
> > Thank you!!!
> > Lila
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller 
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Steven Zhang]

Sounds like a great way to get insight from our new editors :)

If video reactions are desired, I think at one point we (WMF) videoed people 
that had never edited before, try and edit with the source code editor, and 
they described their experience after. Might also be helpful in addition to 
this. I recall viewing it during Sue's Wikimania keynote in Hong Kong.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 May 2014, at 6:24 pm, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> 
> I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
> it is:
> 
> Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
> better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> natural.
> 
> I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
> used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
> the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went pretty
> smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
> in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and for
> our team.
> 
> Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a kid
> making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> 
> So now I have a challenge back to you:
> 
> 
>   - Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
>   - Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
>   - Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
>   - Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> 
> 
> Thank you!!!
> Lila
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Bence Damokos]

Hi Sam,

If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
available at the time of application).

However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
the whole AffCom.
After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.

As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg

Best regards,
Bence

P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
"Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Quick question:
>
> > The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
> > process to be shortened to a few weeks.
>
> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
>
> Sam
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Samuel Klein]

Quick question:

> The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
> process to be shortened to a few weeks.

When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?

Sam

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Gregory Varnum]

The short answer is that we are reviewing the recognition and renewal
process for user groups right now and ways to expedite the process further.
Now a longer answer for those that are interested...  :)

This is an almost constant activity for AffCom and several small changes
continue to be made. The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
process to be shortened to a few weeks. We are not yet satisfied with the
process, and the introduction of liaisons is just one of the steps we are
taking to resolve feedback on how we can do better. For example, by
maintaining contact with affiliates after their recognition, we are better
able to discover how that process was perceived. There are several other
complicated issues that have arisen with the initial dozen user groups
(which was expected) which we are also working through to help with the
overall process - such as logo design and usage, process for signing
paperwork, input and conflict with existing affiliates, and the wonderful
diversity of types of user groups and their different needs.

We have learned a lot since the new movement affiliation model was
introduced, and we are applying what we have learned as quickly as busy
volunteers can. As we formalize what changes are being made and what steps
we are taking, many of AffCom's members (myself included) are personally
committed to making sure folks know in as transparent a way as possible. As
was the case with the user group logo RFC, we are also committed to getting
large community input when possible, and always welcome and discuss direct
feedback.

We are steadily moving through any backlog of user group requests. With a
couple of complicated exceptions I do not want to go into on a public list
- the remaining groups "in limbo" are mostly groups that AffCom is waiting
to hear back from. If any group has not heard from us in the past month, I
encourage them to reach out to us directly - aff...@lists.wikimedia.org

We will also be working to cleanup the various list of affiliates in
discussion as it does not accurately reflect groups actively in discussion.
There will also be improved documentation on the exact process being used
to help remove some confusion on who is responsible for which aspect of the
recognition process.

On a more personal note. A lot of what we are introducing this year was
initiated by my predecessor, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson. As many of you know, we
tragically lost her a few hours after AffCom initially approved this year's
plans. Thanks to WMF, I was able to attend Cindy's memorial service and
speak with her family. I accepted the Vice-Chair role with a commitment to
Cindy's family and AffCom to do my best to help us fulfill Cindy's vision.
While it will take AffCom longer to address these issues than it would have
with Cindy's wisdom and energy - please know that we have a very sincere
desire to continue to improve and serve the movement in the ways we believe
are best.

-greg aka varnent
Vice-Chair
Wikimedia Affiliations Committee




On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter 
wrote:

> I think this is a good idea, but Im interested in knowing if AffComm
> intends to have a more responsive way to address petitions for affiliation.
> There are a number of applications stuck in limbo with no indication of how
> and when they will be resolved.
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400
> > From: sydney.po...@gmail.com
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> >
> > Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
> >
> > I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
> > affiliates find useful.
> >
> > It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all
> do
> > with affiliates and publish the information.
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement
> affiliates
> > > (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> > > community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> > > Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once
> the
> > > recognition process itself concludes.
> > >
> > > An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> > > affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to
> help
> > > with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and
> supporting
> > > successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
> > >
> > > Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> > > multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary
> liaison, who
> > > will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available
> if
> > > the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations.
> While an
> > > affiliate's liai

Re: [Wikimedia-l] wikireaders project, how is this calculated correctly?

[Victor Grigas]

> On May 29, 2014, at 5:41 AM, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> 
> victor,
> 
> thats great to read about the impact of the project. the idiegogo link
> says it raised 3'370 out of 232'000,  the wmf grant link states it
> raised 3'000. why there is a difference?

I think that indiegogo takes like 10% of whatever you raise if you don't meet 
your goal, I think it's like 3% if you do meet your goal

> i was also wondering that in the report your partner states: 20-30% of
> the wikireaders could not hold any charge so 600 usd where used to
> mail them back to the vendor. while the amazon site for selling the
> devices says: the batteries last for a couple of months then need to
> be replaced.

Yeah if you read a few of the amazon reviews some say that some devices just 
didn't work at all, and some drain the battery way too fast. We had a lot of 
reports of this, people were ashamed to say so because the wikireaders were 
gifts!. 

Aislinn felt that because of this issue the project was a failure and we 
shouldn't do the same with these devices again since we were shipping these 
devices to mostly poor people who can't afford to keep buying batteries. Also 
we found that AAA batts aren't the same quality everywhere, high might 
contribute to the high fail rate.

The value of the whole thing is the survey data in the google doc in the report

> 
> rupert
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Victor Grigas  wrote:
>> My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
>> distributed to 3 schools:
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report
>> 
>> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>> 
 On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
 ...
 So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
 the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
 expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
 -- Marc
>>> 
>>> There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
>>> your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
>>> staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
>>> employing.
>>> 
>>> I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
>>> out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
>>> recall, did not.
>>> 
>>> Fae
>>> --
>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> *Victor Grigas*
>> Storyteller 
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> vgri...@wikimedia.org
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Fæ]

n 29 May 2014 15:43, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> We have deeper graphs. I want to be sensitive to our product team's time,
> but I am sure they will share when they can.

Hi Lila,

As well as WMF teams, there are quite a few volunteers about who pull
reports from the database or through the API and generate interesting
reports, tables and charts to support projects they are interested in.
For a bit of fun I manually generate this report of active Commons
contributors with more than 10,000 edits
.

It might be an idea to think of how you can encourage unpaid
volunteers to try playing around with generating reports and creating
bots to maintain them so that, as a community, more volunteers can do
it themselves and produce test examples in an agile fashion, and
reduce the burden on WMF teams to respond to requests.

I find the labs, API and database user guides okay, but not easy, for
a non-technical person to work out what they need to do to get
started. Noting that the the API sandbox was a *great* well designed
feature to add to the wikis. In practice, as an older guy with a
technical but non-internet background, it took me nearly a year to
become not-too-terrible at doing bot-stuff (and I still have not got
around to working out how to run SQL queries via Python to the
Wikimedia database), for the very few contributors that are interested
in what happens behind the scenes, this is a tough barrier to
overcome. I have been asked to help with a workshop on GLAM related
automated uploading at Wikimania. I'm dreading it, as having tried
several times, I find it really hard to explain to another Wikimedia
how to go about this stuff in an understandable step by step fashion,
without listening to myself and realising how it awkwardly sounds like
explaining how to do a DNA analysis using kitchen tools from someone
who watches CSI but cannot remember the periodic table.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Bishakha Datta]

Love it.

Look forward to reading the paragraphs (without identifying info) when the
experiment is completed, or at some suitable point in the process. :)

Best
Bishakha


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter 
wrote:

> Ok! I have a training session with Tec de Monterrey students doing
> community service on Sat. This will be part of their introduction!
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:24:33 -0700
> > From: l...@wikimedia.org
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1
> >
> > I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
> > it is:
> >
> > Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> > first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
> > better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> > natural.
> >
> > I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
> > used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
> > the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went
> pretty
> > smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
> > in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and
> for
> > our team.
> >
> > Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a
> kid
> > making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> >
> > So now I have a challenge back to you:
> >
> >
> >- Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
> >- Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
> >- Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
> >- Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> >
> >
> > Thank you!!!
> > Lila
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[David Gerard]

Suggestion: make this a blog post, then we have something to forward widely.

On 29 May 2014 09:24, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
> it is:
>
> Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
> better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> natural.
>
> I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
> used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
> the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went pretty
> smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
> in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and for
> our team.
>
> Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a kid
> making their first goal. Exhilarating.
>
> So now I have a challenge back to you:
>
>
>- Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
>- Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
>- Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
>- Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
>
>
> Thank you!!!
> Lila
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Fæ]

On 29 May 2014 15:31, Rui Correia  wrote:
> Neither of those answers my question. I doesn't tell me whether we are
> bleeding new or old members. The reason for an editor of either group to
> leave are different. All that that graph shows is that there has been a
> frightful drop since 2007.

The reports do include things like "recently absent wikipedians".
Perhaps you would like to write down a few criteria for the ideal
report you would like to see, and then those more aware of what
statistics are available could then either point to something
equivalent, or knock out a quick report for it?

My assumption is that you would like to see something like a monthly
snapshot of stats for all accounts that (a) have ceased making
contributions in the last {1 to 6} months (b) tabulated by whether
they were 'newbies' or not. I am unsure if there is an agreed way of
measuring newbies, but something like "with fewer than {10, 100, 1000}
total contributions" might be meaningful.

A more general question - Is there an on-wiki page for folks to
suggest and discuss additional reports like this, email being a
non-good way of discussing this sort of thing? I can see
 might be an
appropriate place, but it seems a very quiet page and the majority of
Wikimedians would probably be happier talking on meta or similar.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Lila Tretikov]

We have deeper graphs. I want to be sensitive to our product team's time,
but I am sure they will share when they can.

The short answer -- I believe -- the the community tends to gravitate
towards its current state and loose new editors at a higher rate. This is
not unusual in general of course -- what is concerning is the delta in
those rates. So we also need to understand the differences in the loss
between now and say 5 years ago when rules of engagement, dynamics and
overall state of the internet where different, and how that influenced
retention.

Again, I am still learning, and our PMs may correct me on this :)

L


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Hi Frederico
>
> Neither of those answers my question. I doesn't tell me whether we are
> bleeding new or old members. The reason for an editor of either group to
> leave are different. All that that graph shows is that there has been a
> frightful drop since 2007.
>
> Rui
>
>
> 2014-05-29 15:28 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>
> > Rui Correia, 29/05/2014 15:01:
> >
> >  Do we have any figures on retention of new editors?
> >>
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%
> > 3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=retention&fulltext=
> > Search&ns202=1&profile=advanced
> >
> >
> >  How long does the
> >> average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
> >> months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?
> >>
> >
> > In the end what retention matters for is http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/
> > TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
> >
> > Nemo
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> _
> 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

[Thyge]

2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair :

>
> * I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
> protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
> interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
> the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
> outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
> but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
> a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
>
> I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
> basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
> directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
> reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
> ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
> coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally
> upsetting?
>
> Thanks again!
> ,Wil


Wil,
if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for
years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of
spill-off here.

In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can obtain
consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions without
apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and without
presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a
solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the
questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.

This is what I feel you 'have done wrong'  and - since that takes away from
my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that
is what upsets me.
Regards,
Thyge
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[rupert THURNER]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> Fæ, 29/05/2014 16:07:
>
>> Perhaps we should have some more memorable on-wiki short-cuts to link
>> and find these reports?
>
>
> I suggested Erik Zachte that we could override the default
> [[MediaWiki:statistics-footer]] (which is empty) on all Wikimedia wikis to
> link relevant WikiStats reports, but he's too humble. ;)

yes please!

rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Rui Correia]

Hi Frederico

Neither of those answers my question. I doesn't tell me whether we are
bleeding new or old members. The reason for an editor of either group to
leave are different. All that that graph shows is that there has been a
frightful drop since 2007.

Rui


2014-05-29 15:28 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :

> Rui Correia, 29/05/2014 15:01:
>
>  Do we have any figures on retention of new editors?
>>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%
> 3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=retention&fulltext=
> Search&ns202=1&profile=advanced
>
>
>  How long does the
>> average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
>> months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?
>>
>
> In the end what retention matters for is http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/
> TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
_
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Fæ, 29/05/2014 16:07:

Perhaps we should have some more memorable on-wiki short-cuts to link
and find these reports?


I suggested Erik Zachte that we could override the default 
[[MediaWiki:statistics-footer]] (which is empty) on all Wikimedia wikis 
to link relevant WikiStats reports, but he's too humble. ;)


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Connecting knowledge to power: the future of digital democracy

[Stevie Benton]

Hello everyone (with apologies for cross-posting),

tl:dr -* Wikimedia UK  and Demos
 are encouraging Wikimedians to participate in an
attempt to crowdsource a submission to a call for evidence on digital
democracy from the Speaker of the House of Commons. You can find the
consultation page here

and
we look forward to hearing from you.*

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has established a Commission
on Digital Democracy
.
It will report to Parliament in early 2015 with recommendations on how
Parliament can use technology to better represent and engage with the
electorate, make laws and hold the powerful to account. As part of their
work, the Commission have issued a series of calls for evidence. These are
open invitations for members of the public, either as individuals or
groups, to submit responses to a series of questions. They have attracted
responses from unions, academics, non-governmental institutions and private
individuals. The first theme was ‘making laws in a digital age’, and the
second on ‘digital scrutiny’. The Commission plans to shortly publish the
final three themes.

There is a growing sense that the growth of the Internet has not paid the
democratic dividends that it could. Turnout in formal political elections
is steadily decreasing, and trust and support in the institutions and
offices of mainstream political life are low and falling. Despite many
innovative attempts from both within and outside of Government, the daily
reality of democratic engagement for most people in the UK would be
familiar to generations of British citizens who predate Facebook or email.
The rise of the Internet has, broadly, done little to challenge
concentrations of power or structures of unequal representation

Demos  is one of Britain’s leading cross-party
think tank and it has an overarching mission to bring politics closer to
people. They contacted Wikimedia UK to propose an experiment: can an online
community be used to source a response to this call? Can the ethos,
community and technology like that of Wikipedia be used to engage
Wikipedians to come together and collaborate to create a reply? In
particular, Carl Miller, Research Director of the Demos Centre for the
Analysis of Social Media, wrote this piece for Wired
 in which
he describes Wikipedia as a masterclass in digital democracy.

This conversation has led to what is an experimental attempt to do just
that. In theory there are many lessons that any attempt to increase
engagement with digital democracy can learn from Wikimedia projects,
especially Wikipedia. These include the participatory nature of content
development and the nature of content (and policy) being arrived at by
consensus. Wikipedians are from a wide array of backgrounds and represent a
broad spectrum of views. This could lend itself to effective drafting of
the kind of evidence that the Speaker is looking for. Wikimedia UK and
Demos would like to establish whether this is indeed the case. In
particular, we are seeking answers to the following questions:

   -

   How can technology help Parliament and other agencies to scrutinise the
   work of government?
   -

   How can technology help citizens scrutinise the Government and the work
   of Parliament?
   -

   What kinds of data should Parliament and Government release to the
   public to make itself more open to outside scrutiny?

Everyone is encouraged to try to answer these questions collaboratively, in
much the same way Wikipedia articles are approached - using the space below
for content and talk page for discussion. Stevie Benton from Wikimedia UK
 and Carl Miller
from Demos will happily answer any questions on the talk page but are
equally happy to let the process take its course.

At this point there is no fixed deadline for evidence on the theme of
digital scrutiny. However, the Speaker’s Commission will be publishing
publishing a single call for evidence covering our last three themes (yet
to be announced). The conversation and crowdsourced evidence will be
reviewed at the end of June with a view to either continuing the process or
submitting as is. If there is appetite among the community, and if the
first attempt is successful, there may be further attempts to develop
submissions to the later three themes.

At the end of the process Demos and Wikimedia UK will prepare a report on
the process and the effectiveness of this kind of approach to crowdsourcing
policy and evidence. This paper will be released under an open licence. It
is a real opportunity for Wikimedians to influence the debate ab

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Fæ]

On 29/05/2014, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
...
> In the end what retention matters for is
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm

That is an incredibly useful report.

If like me, most people find this a hard table to remember how to
locate, a link to a project-specific version can be found at the
bottom of the Special:Statistics page, for example:
* English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
* Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

You can navigate around the statistics report to find report cards and
graphs of many handy types, for example


Perhaps we should have some more memorable on-wiki short-cuts to link
and find these reports?

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Ok! I have a training session with Tec de Monterrey students doing community 
service on Sat. This will be part of their introduction!

> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:24:33 -0700
> From: l...@wikimedia.org
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1
> 
> I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
> it is:
> 
> Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
> first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
> better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
> natural.
> 
> I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
> used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
> the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went pretty
> smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
> in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and for
> our team.
> 
> Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a kid
> making their first goal. Exhilarating.
> 
> So now I have a challenge back to you:
> 
> 
>- Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
>- Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
>- Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
>- Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
> 
> 
> Thank you!!!
> Lila
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Rui Correia, 29/05/2014 15:01:

Do we have any figures on retention of new editors?


https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=retention&fulltext=Search&ns202=1&profile=advanced


How long does the
average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?


In the end what retention matters for is 
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

I think this is a good idea, but Im interested in knowing if AffComm intends to 
have a more responsive way to address petitions for affiliation. There are a 
number of applications stuck in limbo with no indication of how and when they 
will be resolved.



> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400
> From: sydney.po...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> 
> Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
> 
> I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
> affiliates find useful.
> 
> It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do
> with affiliates and publish the information.
> 
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum"  wrote:
> 
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> > (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> > community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> > Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> > recognition process itself concludes.
> >
> > An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> > affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> > with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> > successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> > multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> > will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> > the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> > affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> > one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> > committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
> >
> > Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> > be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> > welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> > thematic org, or user group moving forward.
> >
> > More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
> >
> > -greg aka varnent
> > Vice-Chair
> > Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]

[Rui Correia]

[Chaging subject line as (1) topic has moved on (2) need to ensure
visibility by rising above the Lila/ Wil never ending story frenzy.]

Hi James

Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?

New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy to
create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages by
new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing more
disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find that
someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates it
for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk page.
I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was wrong. It
should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can improve/
fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like
WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a WP
policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where the new
editor can read about it. I know it is time-consuming to fill in edit
summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to a
whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a blank
edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text and you can select an
applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of the
page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like
splitting the field.

No amount of ink about how welcoming WP is to new editors, IT IS NOT. For
reference, this section has some interesting facts,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Contributors.

We are also losing established editors, mostly because of edit warring.
There are blocks coalescing around all kinds of themes and issues and these
defend their turf.

Pages that contain controversial details should display a specific notice -
not difficult to do, given the array of templates already in use. Some
pages are the result of a compromise reached after acrimonious debate. An
editor - old or new - who was not involved in discussions will not know
this and might make an edit that detonates the powder keg and starts the
war all over again. It would be so easy to display a notice on the EDIT
PAGE saying something like "Hi, if you were planning to edit .[ x
detail] ... please read (link) the discussion and resolution on this. I am
pretty convinced it would work far better than having thousands of pages
locked ([semi-]protected). Some pages just require a simple message on the
EDIT PAGE such as (example) "In the English Wikipedia we use the spelling
*Braganza* and not *Bragança* when referring to the House of Braganza.
Please do not change this.".  There are 1,300 pages where Braganza is
mentioned, imagine how many headaches we could spare ourselves.

Some editors seem to derive pleasure from the constant reverting/
protecting - you soon get to know who the 'group' is and can read on their
talk pages comments and jokes about a "here we go again" scenario. It is as
if they actually lie in wait for the next unwary editor to come along and
make a change.

At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of pages that do not meet
20% of the quality criteria and nobody does anything to remedy them. Yet,
do something like move the page, change the infobox and immediately the
'owners' come out of the woodwork to revert.

Someone cited Ukranian in this thread and I would like to pick up on that.
There is a tendency at the higher levels to equate Wikipedia with the
English Wikipedia and all else are something else. This includes the level
of involvement by the Foundation etc in the non-English Wikipedias, often
with the justification (excuse?) that each is independent. And of course
each language WP will use this independence to its advantage when
convenient, as a reason why this or that is being done differently. In the
same breath, content that is specifically marked as referring to the En-WP
is then regurgitated as if it reflects the whole WP, as here, in the
Portuguese WP:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiabilidade_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia#Avalia.C3.A7.C3.B5es

Independence is well and good, but not when for example the Portuguese WP
votes/ debates/ discusses/ relaxing sourcing policies. If WP is to be
judged on its reliability then on a number of key elements it must be held
to one standard with criteria that apply across the board. We can't have
different standards on reliability of sources, notibality, etc.

To shrug it off as an issue of the Portuguese WP is to bury our heads in
the sand, to shirk responsibility, because such issues are symptomatic of
the problems facing the WP as a whole and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Austin Hair  wrote:

> Wil,
>
> Just for the record, "hands-off" is the best way to describe our
> approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes
> step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for
> this list, that bar's set pretty high.
>
> The "soft post limit" that's been pointed out to you exists as a
> guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which...
> yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your
> ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the
> number of things you have to defend all at once.
>
> Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way
> worse.
>
> Austin
>

I meant to say this a month or two ago, but... Welcome back, Austin!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Sydney Poore]

Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.

I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
affiliates find useful.

It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do
with affiliates and publish the information.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum"  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> recognition process itself concludes.
>
> An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
>
> Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> thematic org, or user group moving forward.
>
> More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
>
> -greg aka varnent
> Vice-Chair
> Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Austin Hair]

Wil,

Just for the record, "hands-off" is the best way to describe our
approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes
step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for
this list, that bar's set pretty high.

The "soft post limit" that's been pointed out to you exists as a
guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which...
yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your
ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the
number of things you have to defend all at once.

Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way worse.

Austin


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>
> I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> ostracized.
>
> That's right: *afraid*
>
> I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>
>
>
> . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
>
> ,Wil
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
>> hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
>>
>> Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
>> that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
>>
>>
>> Pete Forsyth writes:
>>> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
>>> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
>>> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
>>
>> Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
>> would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
>> there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
>>
>>
>> Erik Moeller writes:
>>> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per 
>>> [month]
>>
>> Wil Sinclair writes:
>>> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
>>> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
>>
>> I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
>> interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
>> make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
>> perspective...
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
>> Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 29/05/2014, Austin Hair  wrote:
> ́Fae,
>
> You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
> out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
> with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
> off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.
>
> Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
> himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
> mudslinging off this list.
>
> Austin

Thanks Austin.

As Austin is a list moderator, I take this as an official public
warning to me, from the list moderators, that my way of highlighting
to Wil of the nature of who he was actively promoting on this list,
was not acceptable behaviour by me on this list.

My email was not intended as an allegation nor mudslinging, but as an
assertion of publicly documented fact. It should be noted that Andreas
Kolbe provided links and extracts of the evidence on this list at
.
Kohs' use of a word that demeans and derides all gay people was not
acceptable on Wikipediocracy, the website that Kohs owns, and after
some discussion there, was removed from public view under the site
terms of use(*). I am certain that Andreas would be happy to address
further questions by direct email to him as a Wikipediocracy moderator
with access to the original material, rather than continuing to
correspond about it on this public forum with only links available of
partial representations of it.

* - Wikipediocracy's terms include "You agree not to post any abusive,
obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated
or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country,
the country where “Wikipediocracy” is hosted or International Law."

Wil remains free to post exactly how he pleases on any forum, this is
up to his discretion, I hope he continues to enjoy and respect the
freedom to do so.

My apologies to readers of this list for any misunderstanding that my
taking part might have caused. It was not my intention to abuse any
free speech rights for anyone else, but to fairly exercise my own with
regard to a serious incident of LGBT interest.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Rui Correia]

Hi James

Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?

New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy to
create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages by
new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing more
disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find that
someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates it
for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk page.
I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was wrong. It
should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can improve/
fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like
WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a WP
policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where the new
editor can read about it. I know it is time-consuming to fill in edit
summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to a
whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a blank
edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text and you can select an
applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of the
page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like
splitting the field.

No amount of ink about how welcoming WP is to new editors, IT IS NOT. For
reference, this section has some interesting facts,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Contributors.

We are also losing established editors, mostly because of edit warring.
There are blocks coalescing around all kinds of themes and issues and these
defend their turf.

Pages that contain controversial details should display a specific notice -
not difficult to do, given the array of templates already in use. Some
pages are the result of a compromise reached after acrimonious debate. An
editor - old or new - who was not involved in discussions will not know
this and might make an edit that detonates the powder keg and starts the
war all over again. It would be so easy to display a notice on the EDIT
PAGE saying something like "Hi, if you were planning to edit .[ x
detail] ... please read (link) the discussion and resolution on this. I am
pretty convinced it would work far better than having thousands of pages
locked ([semi-]protected). Some pages just require a simple message on the
EDIT PAGE such as (example) "In the English Wikipedia we use the spelling
*Braganza* and not *Bragança* when referring to the House of Braganza.
Please do not change this.".  There are 1,300 pages where Braganza is
mentioned, imagine how many headaches we could spare ourselves.

Some editors seem to derive pleasure from the constant reverting/
protecting - you soon get to know who the 'group' is and can read on their
talk pages comments and jokes about a "here we go again" scenario. It is as
if they actually lie in wait for the next unwary editor to come along and
make a change.

At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of pages that do not meet
20% of the quality criteria and nobody does anything to remedy them. Yet,
do something like move the page, change the infobox and immediately the
'owners' come out of the woodwork to revert.

Someone cited Ukranian in this thread and I would like to pick up on that.
There is a tendency at the higher levels to equate Wikipedia with the
English Wikipedia and all else are something else. This includes the level
of involvement by the Foundation etc in the non-English Wikipedias, often
with the justification (excuse?) that each is independent. And of course
each language WP will use this independence to its advantage when
convenient, as a reason why this or that is being done differently. In the
same breath, content that is specifically marked as referring to the En-WP
is then regurgitated as if it reflects the whole WP, as here, in the
Portuguese WP:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiabilidade_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia#Avalia.C3.A7.C3.B5es

Independence is well and good, but not when for example the Portuguese WP
votes/ debates/ discusses/ relaxing sourcing policies. If WP is to be
judged on its reliability then on a number of key elements it must be held
to one standard with criteria that apply across the board. We can't have
different standards on reliability of sources, notibality, etc.

To shrug it off as an issue of the Portuguese WP is to bury our heads in
the sand, to shirk responsibility, because such issues are symptomatic of
the problems facing the WP as a whole and contributing to the reasons that
make editors pack up and go.

Also from Portuguese WP, it is embarassing that since 2009 there have bee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Samuel Klein]

Greg, this is good to hear, and a fine reason to broaden the committee.

And thanks for the reminder about that page, Chris: it is a handy starting
point.
On May 29, 2014 7:45 AM, "Chris Keating"  wrote:

> Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.
>
> I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement
> affiliates
> > (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> > community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> > Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> > recognition process itself concludes.
> >
> > An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> > affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to
> help
> > with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and
> supporting
> > successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> > multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison,
> who
> > will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> > the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While
> an
> > affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> > one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> > committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
> >
> > Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will
> then
> > be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time.
> We
> > welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> > thematic org, or user group moving forward.
> >
> > More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
> >
> > -greg aka varnent
> > Vice-Chair
> > Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Chris Keating]

Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.

I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development

Chris


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> recognition process itself concludes.
>
> An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
>
> Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> thematic org, or user group moving forward.
>
> More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
>
> -greg aka varnent
> Vice-Chair
> Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

[Alice Wiegand]

Good news, Greg!
This is a great initiative which can provide a lot of support especially
for younger affiliations. I'm curious how it will be accepted and what's
the kind of support affiliations ask for. Please keep us in the loop.

Alice.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> recognition process itself concludes.
>
> An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
>
> Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> thematic org, or user group moving forward.
>
> More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
>
> -greg aka varnent
> Vice-Chair
> Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Austin Hair]

́Fae,

You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.

Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
mudslinging off this list.

Austin

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
>
> Fae
>
> On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
>>
>> I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
>> *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
>> In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
>> on the quote itself?
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>>> Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
>>> call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
>>>
>>> I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
>>> to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
>>> role in the Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> Fae
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil
>>>
>>> --
>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy (also relevant to "A personal note")

[Mike Godwin]

Hi, Wil (and greetings to all my Wikimedian friends here!).

I've been catching up on the Wikimedia-L threads, and of course I've
come across your many postings and your engagement, sometimes tense,
with other posters here. I have some sympathy for your reactions and
questions: I've had some similar experiences myself, dating in
particular from the first year I served on WMF's staff as general
counsel. My own experience was colored by the fact that I knew my
intentions were good, I was reasonably certain I was a smart, even
sociable guy, and so why was it that some significant portion of what
I posted generated friction on what was supposed to be an inclusive,
Assume-Good-Faith mailing list?

I think I realized reasonably quickly that, precisely because I
assumed my own good faith, I wasn't always alert to my cultural
missteps, even though I knew at an intellectual level that this
mailing list, unlike some others, is a community. For a community,
when a new individual appears out of "nowhere" and begins to assert
himself or herself, and launches into extended criticisms of so many
things he (or she) encounters, the natural, human reaction is not to
automatically embrace the newcomer for his or her contributions to
diversity and insight, but instead to wonder, "Hey, why hasn't he made
the effort to learn about our history and traditions and norms and
expectations?"  *This phenomenon is entirely human and normal*, but it
still sometimes requires a bit of a bumpy transition, even if you know
(intellectually, at least) to expect it.

So, what I'm suggesting is, when you respond by trying to call
attention to the friction your (comparatively) abrupt dive into this
community has generated for you, what you may be calling attention to
is not something pathological about a mailing list but instead just a
part of the human condition. If you're patient, you can take a breath
or two, maybe even a short break, and come back to the list and give
as much attention to the issues and problems for the Wikimedia
movement as you like, and over time get better reactions/reception.

My own experience was that, over time, most Wikimedians had a chance
to observe my commitment as a Wikimedian, and in my role as WMF's
lawyer, to protect and advance the projects with the same fierceness
with which I sometimes, particularly early on, expressed my opinions
on the mailing lists and on the wikis. No doubt the potential is there
for you to have the same experience.

There is one important, though, between your experience and mine, and
if I were in your position I would give it some thought. Specifically,
your partner is only ever going to have one first month, and only one
first year, as the new executive director of WMF. If I were in your
position, I would give her as much breathing space and community
mindshare as I could to create her own first impressions, to find her
own themes, and to set the tone for her long-term role as executive
director. I might even take a month off with regard to participating
in public discussions -- *even though I wouldn't have to, and even
though some of the reactions to what I'd written seem unfair to me* --
just to let my partner establish her own role without any distractions
I might cause. Lila's job is tough and challenging, and she will need
all the support she can get. You may find that one way you can support
her in the very near term is to step away from tense exchanges (or
maybe all public exchanges on the lists) for a while -- even though
you may feel, with some sense of righteousness, that you shouldn't
have to do this.

I agree that in an ideal world you shouldn't have to. But in the human
world we live in, if I were in your position, I'd give this approach a
month or so, just as an exercise, and as a way of showing support for
my partner's taking the reins of an unusually difficult, but also
culturally unique enterprise.

You haven't solicited my advice on any of this, of course. But I hope
you appreciate that you're hearing it from someone who himself has
been outspoken on the lists, who is sometimes critical of community
responses and norms, who has been publicly criticized from time to
time,  but who also has found that it's really helpful, especially in
the earliest days of engagement with a new community, to listen as
much as talk. I think of myself as a Wikimedian, and my ongoing
engagement with the movement and the community is one of general
respect and regard, even when I disagree with their consensus, as I
frequently do.

I hope this note is taken in the spirit in which it is written.

Thanks for your attention.


--Mike Godwin
Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project, Internews
General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation, 2007-2010

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimed

[Wikimedia-l] wikireaders project, how is this calculated correctly?

[rupert THURNER]

victor,

thats great to read about the impact of the project. the idiegogo link
says it raised 3'370 out of 232'000,  the wmf grant link states it
raised 3'000. why there is a difference?

i was also wondering that in the report your partner states: 20-30% of
the wikireaders could not hold any charge so 600 usd where used to
mail them back to the vendor. while the amazon site for selling the
devices says: the batteries last for a couple of months then need to
be replaced.

rupert



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Victor Grigas  wrote:
> My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
> distributed to 3 schools:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report
>
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>> ...
>> > So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
>> > the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
>> > expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
>> > -- Marc
>>
>> There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
>> your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
>> staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
>> employing.
>>
>> I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
>> out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
>> recall, did not.
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Victor Grigas*
> Storyteller 
> Wikimedia Foundation
> vgri...@wikimedia.org
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pipo Le Clown]

Well, the best way to meet people interested in working with you to build
the sound library on Commons is ... on Commons. There's a Village Pump
there, where you can freely post a message, and people will answer it if
they are interested. There are projects running that revolve around sound
or video.

You are welcome to participate to Commons, as you are on any projects of
the community. But people won't come to you, you've got to make the first
step. This is how we roll.




On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
> whatsoever.
>
> I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
> taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
> leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
> mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
> then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
> *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
>
> Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
> I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
> library on Commons.
>
> Best!
> ,Wil
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
>  wrote:
> > Hi Wil,
> >
> > I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
> > well worth taking on board.
> >
> > Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
> >  But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
> > that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
> > child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
> > they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
> > in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
> >
> > I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
> > spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
> > recrimination.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> >
> >> hi Wil,
> >>
> >> reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write
> that
> >> I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome
> that
> >> you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
> >>
> >> As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find
> it
> >> slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
> >> about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem
> before.
> >> Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
> >> Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village
> Pumps,
> >> AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
> >> skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop
> reading
> >> critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
> >> opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
> >>
> >> I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People
> are,
> >> in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
> >> breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
> >> participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
> >> able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
> >> for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
> >>
> >> If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
> >> frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> dariusz "pundit"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >>
> >> > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> >> > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
> >> >
> >> > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> >> > don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> >> > the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> >> > ostracized.
> >> >
> >> > That's right: *afraid*
> >> >
> >> > I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> >> > I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> >> > that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> >> > lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> >> > by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> >> > are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> >> > many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
> >> >
> >> > ,Wil
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein 
> wrote:
> >> > > Hello all,
> >> > >
> >> > > Lila: Thank you kindly for thes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Jon Davies]

We hardly ever say 'Thank You'


On 29 May 2014 11:10, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> James is right in that we could do better in growing the number of people
> contributing to our projects. So what is it that makes people back?
> Typically it is that they find the information they look for. Typically it
> is that their contribution is valued and does not take too much effort.
>
> When you look at our efforts they typically require a "big intellect". That
> excludes many people because it is often more that you are expected to
> conform to particular expectations than being brainy. We are focused on our
> existing largest community, we cater for what is important to them and
> consequently we do not consider those that are not obvious targets for that
> largest community.
>
> When we do venture out, for instance in "Wiki loves monuments" we do really
> well; we make the Guiness book of records. It is however not the WMF that
> learns the lessons; it is left for the communities, the chapters. The same
> is for the GLAM participation, it is not even the WMF that provides the
> infra structure, it is the chapters and they are "blamed" for having an
> agenda that does not align with the technical aspirations of MediaWiki et
> al development. The GLAM cooperation is another area where we as a movement
> shine.
>
> When you want opportunities where we expand on things outside of core
> en.wp, have a look at the games developed by Magnus [1]. People find them
> highly entertaining and they do serve a need. In the "Reasonator" people
> can get information about data in Wikidata even when there are no "labels"
> in their language because it provides language fall back. However,
> Reasonator is served from Labs and it is not consistently available to our
> users. Its "up time" is not consistent with what is needed for an end-user
> experience and consequently its growth is stunted at the current level.
>
> We do not know what people are looking for and fail to find. We do not know
> that for any language and consequently we cannot ask things like: "do you
> know the name of what you are looking for in another language". This could
> add labels to Wikidata and help in finding results for other people using
> WD-Search support in a Wikipedia.
>
> Really when we want to engage more people, we should not only cater for
> what our most visible and most loud community is looking for. We should
> consider opportunities outside that community. When the en.wp may benefit
> as well, it should be a fringe benefit !!
>
> So yes, lets grow our community and the most growth is where we have
> achieved the least.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/#
>
>
> On 29 May 2014 10:06, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Lila Tretikov wrote:
> > >...
> > > Allocation should follow strategic priorities and it
> > > is the strategy that helps answer this question.
> >
> > On this point, it should be enormously helpful to point out that the
> > only strategic goal which the Foundation has ever failed to achieve,
> > and has consistently failed to achieve, is this one:
> >
> >
> >
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation
> >
> > That specific strategic priority of increasing participation is the
> > focus of the sixteen proposed additional strategic goals below. Some
> > people have substantial objections to some of them, but I'm not clear
> > on the details. Nobody has suggested any reason that Foundation goals
> > would not benefit from at least an attempt at alignment to volunteer
> > contributing editor preferences on these issues.
> >
> > But what have I forgotten? What have I left out? If I could only get
> > one suggestion for every two people who take issue with specific
> > things already on the list, I would feel a lot more comfortable and
> > confident that there isn't anything being forgotten.
> >
> > >... On a more operational scale, resources tend go
> > > to where the users are or where the opportunity is.
> > > When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
> > > hypothesis that it would yield results.
> >
> > I agree with measuring what is likely to work best, but for some of
> > these proposals, including some of the lowest hanging fruit, that is
> > very hard. So again, I recommend depending on the wisdom of
> > contributing editors. To that end, an editor survey is something which
> > really needs to be done to prep for this. I trust the Board and Staff
> > to be able to veto things which are unworkable and reach through to
> > the opportunities in an agile fashion. What I don't understand are the
> > few who suggest that the Foundation should not be more active on
> > trying to improve the lot in life of potential volunteer editors. How
> > can that possibly be part of a strategy to increase participation?
> >
> > 1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com
> >
> > 2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rig

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.

I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
library on Commons.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
 wrote:
> Hi Wil,
>
> I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
> well worth taking on board.
>
> Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
>  But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
> that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
> child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
> they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
> in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
>
> I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
> spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
> recrimination.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
>> hi Wil,
>>
>> reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
>> I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
>> you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
>>
>> As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
>> slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
>> about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
>> Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
>> Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
>> AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
>> skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
>> critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
>> opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
>>
>> I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
>> in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
>> breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
>> participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
>> able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
>> for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
>>
>> If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
>> frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dariusz "pundit"
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>>
>> > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
>> > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>> >
>> > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
>> > don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
>> > the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
>> > ostracized.
>> >
>> > That's right: *afraid*
>> >
>> > I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
>> > I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
>> > that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
>> > lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
>> > by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
>> > are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
>> > many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
>> >
>> > ,Wil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> > > Hello all,
>> > >
>> > > Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
>> > > hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
>> > >
>> > > Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
>> > > that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Pete Forsyth writes:
>> > >> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
>> at
>> > >> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
>> > >> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
>> > >
>> > > Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
>> > > would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
>> > > there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Erik Moeller writes:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

James is right in that we could do better in growing the number of people
contributing to our projects. So what is it that makes people back?
Typically it is that they find the information they look for. Typically it
is that their contribution is valued and does not take too much effort.

When you look at our efforts they typically require a "big intellect". That
excludes many people because it is often more that you are expected to
conform to particular expectations than being brainy. We are focused on our
existing largest community, we cater for what is important to them and
consequently we do not consider those that are not obvious targets for that
largest community.

When we do venture out, for instance in "Wiki loves monuments" we do really
well; we make the Guiness book of records. It is however not the WMF that
learns the lessons; it is left for the communities, the chapters. The same
is for the GLAM participation, it is not even the WMF that provides the
infra structure, it is the chapters and they are "blamed" for having an
agenda that does not align with the technical aspirations of MediaWiki et
al development. The GLAM cooperation is another area where we as a movement
shine.

When you want opportunities where we expand on things outside of core
en.wp, have a look at the games developed by Magnus [1]. People find them
highly entertaining and they do serve a need. In the "Reasonator" people
can get information about data in Wikidata even when there are no "labels"
in their language because it provides language fall back. However,
Reasonator is served from Labs and it is not consistently available to our
users. Its "up time" is not consistent with what is needed for an end-user
experience and consequently its growth is stunted at the current level.

We do not know what people are looking for and fail to find. We do not know
that for any language and consequently we cannot ask things like: "do you
know the name of what you are looking for in another language". This could
add labels to Wikidata and help in finding results for other people using
WD-Search support in a Wikipedia.

Really when we want to engage more people, we should not only cater for
what our most visible and most loud community is looking for. We should
consider opportunities outside that community. When the en.wp may benefit
as well, it should be a fringe benefit !!

So yes, lets grow our community and the most growth is where we have
achieved the least.
Thanks,
 GerardM




[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/#


On 29 May 2014 10:06, James Salsman  wrote:

> Lila Tretikov wrote:
> >...
> > Allocation should follow strategic priorities and it
> > is the strategy that helps answer this question.
>
> On this point, it should be enormously helpful to point out that the
> only strategic goal which the Foundation has ever failed to achieve,
> and has consistently failed to achieve, is this one:
>
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation
>
> That specific strategic priority of increasing participation is the
> focus of the sixteen proposed additional strategic goals below. Some
> people have substantial objections to some of them, but I'm not clear
> on the details. Nobody has suggested any reason that Foundation goals
> would not benefit from at least an attempt at alignment to volunteer
> contributing editor preferences on these issues.
>
> But what have I forgotten? What have I left out? If I could only get
> one suggestion for every two people who take issue with specific
> things already on the list, I would feel a lot more comfortable and
> confident that there isn't anything being forgotten.
>
> >... On a more operational scale, resources tend go
> > to where the users are or where the opportunity is.
> > When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
> > hypothesis that it would yield results.
>
> I agree with measuring what is likely to work best, but for some of
> these proposals, including some of the lowest hanging fruit, that is
> very hard. So again, I recommend depending on the wisdom of
> contributing editors. To that end, an editor survey is something which
> really needs to be done to prep for this. I trust the Board and Staff
> to be able to veto things which are unworkable and reach through to
> the opportunities in an agile fashion. What I don't understand are the
> few who suggest that the Foundation should not be more active on
> trying to improve the lot in life of potential volunteer editors. How
> can that possibly be part of a strategy to increase participation?
>
> 1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com
>
> 2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the
> Child and its protocols without reservation
>
> 3. Increase infrastructure spending
>
> 4. Increase education spending
>
> 5. Public school class size reduction
>
> 6. College subsidy with income-based repayment terms
>
> 7. More steeply progressive tax

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Lila Tretikov]

Any language :)


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Lila Tretikov, 29/05/2014 10:24:
>
>> - Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1
>>
>
> In any language? ;)
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Wil,

I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
well worth taking on board.

Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
 But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.

I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
recrimination.

Cheers,
Craig


On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> hi Wil,
>
> reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
> I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
> you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
>
> As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
> slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
> about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
> Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
> Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
> AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
> skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
> critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
> opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
>
> I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
> in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
> breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
> participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
> able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
> for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
>
> If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
> frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
> >
> > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> > don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> > the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> > ostracized.
> >
> > That's right: *afraid*
> >
> > I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
> >
> >
> >
> > . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> > I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> > that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> > lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> > by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> > are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> > many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
> >
> > ,Wil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
> > > hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
> > >
> > > Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
> > > that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pete Forsyth writes:
> > >> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
> at
> > >> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
> > >> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
> > >
> > > Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
> > > would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
> > > there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
> > >
> > >
> > > Erik Moeller writes:
> > >> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
> > [month]
> > >
> > > Wil Sinclair writes:
> > >> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
> > >> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
> > >
> > > I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
> > > interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
> > > make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
> > > perspective...
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
> > > Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guideline

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Lila Tretikov, 29/05/2014 10:24:

- Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1


In any language? ;)

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Slide deck about Wikimedia?

[James Alexander]

I believe the list Sue is talking about (which has some nice presentations)
is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/WMF_Presentations

James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> Hi Yves,
>
> I've been meaning to reply as well but had forgotten. So you know: the
> Wikimedia Foundation tries to publish all our public, general decks on the
> WMF site, so that other people can use them or pieces of them, as they see
> fit. Not everything is there, but there should be lots of material you may
> find helpful.
>
> I don't have a link (on my phone) but perhaps if Tilman or somebody else
> who know where they're kept sees this note, they can send it to the list.
> If not, I'll do it later.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On 28 May 2014 14:22, "Yves Z"  wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Federico and Jean-Frédéric.  This is what I was looking for.
> >
> > > From: jeanfrederic.w...@gmail.com
> > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 09:31:09 +0200
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Slide deck about Wikimedia?
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Hello, Where can I find recent presentations about Wikimedia and what
> > each
> > > > of the main projects is for?  I visited outreach.wikimedia.org but
> > didn't
> > > > see slides or overviews.  Thanks!
> > > >
> > >
> > > You might want to check out <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presentations>.
> > >
> > > It’s probably not super up-to-date, but many folks indicate a way to
> get
> > > the source ODP file  (usually by contacting them, SlideShare link,
> etc).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Frédéric
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Edit #1 and Challenge #1

[Lila Tretikov]

I wanted to share my first editing experience and ask for your help. Here
it is:

Today I have made the first edit on English Wikipedia. As I said in my
first meeting -- I believe in traveling the path of our editors, so I can
better understand them and so taht we can make their experience more
natural.

I have edited in private wikis before and I have edited the talk pages. I
used the Visual Editor, even though I am well-versed in the syntax. I had
the advantage of a very very experienced user by my side and it went pretty
smooth -- so this report is not entirely fair. Even though, I did stumble
in a few places, however, and this is a learning experience for me and for
our team.

Overall I wish I had this on video. It is a bit like an experience of a kid
making their first goal. Exhilarating.

So now I have a challenge back to you:


   - Please pick a friend who has never edited before.
   - Ask them to make an edit. Any edit in any language.
   - Please have them write one paragraph about their experience.
   - Have them send it to lila at wikimedia with the subject: #1


Thank you!!!
Lila
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Lila Tretikov]

For the record, I take any safety issues concerning both staff and
volunteers extremely seriously. In the case of a threatening message left
on an employee's talk page, GorillaWarfare took immediate action, for which
I am very grateful. And I am grateful to see this kind of community at work.

Creating an open, safe and welcoming environment is extremely important to
me, and that includes maintaining a friendly space by clearly excluding
individuals who harass and threaten others and preventing their presence on
our pages.



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Molly White <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wil Sinclair  writes:
>
> > I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
> > always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
> > very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
> > responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.
>
> No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a
> staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.
>
> > To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That
> > was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
> > who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
> > with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
> > as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
> > to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
> > everyone's benefit IMO.
>
> Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
> I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
> email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
> member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
> how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
> affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
> even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
> with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
>
> Yours,
> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Lila Tretikov]

Thanks Anders for the advice -- I will look into those. Maintaining freedom
of speech is especially close to my heart.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> Thanks for this update.
>
> Ii is refreshing to see both your will to act in accordance with our
> tradition of transparency and also to see your open curious approach to
> your new assignment (and your will to start up strategy work).
>
> I get two reflections when I read through your mail.
>
> Do not forget to learn of the real wikimedia world behind the SF office
> and the English community. With your background familiar with russian
> language, why not visit:
> *our Ukraine chapter where they have a fascinating story of their efforts
> with the Ukraine language and culture and being a key actor in the build up
> of an Ukrainian identity, which effect we have seen this year in the news
> daily (and where one member even had to our sorrow to pay with his life
> defending the rights on free knowledge for all on Euromajdan)
> *our Russian chapter where they have been extremely successful in keeping
> its independence (and existence) away from the autocratic authorizes and
> even winning respect from top key persons in their political hierarchy. And
> they have been most successful in our movement in fighting off some of the
> most awful POV attacks we have seen (in their case mostly from fascist)
>
> Also do not forget to look into but what we are NOT doing in our
> swdevelopment, but ought to. We are seeing many commercial companies
> looking into how to make money from the content of Wikipedia by introducing
> new type of readers interfaces put on top of Wikipedia. There are
> Californain companies looking into developing a Q&A type of interface, and
> Google are for the moment nice to us, but what if they became less nice and
> steered away search hit away from Wikipedia?
>
> Good luck in your job, and hope to meet you in some part of the strategic
> work that now soon seems to get started
>
> Anders
> (being the most active contributer on Swedish Wikipedia & member of FDC
> until July 1)
>
>
> Lila Tretikov skrev 2014-05-28 01:53:
>
>> Hello Wikimedians,
>>
>> I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
>> immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
>> leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
>> this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
>> probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
>> know
>> a little more about who I am.
>>
>>   I believe the most precious commodity in life is time. I seek challenges
>> worthy of it. I do not work for a job, I work for impact and I chose this
>> role above all others because I believe this is a critical moment for the
>> future of our movement.
>>
>> I also believe no one person can be good at everything, myself included,
>> so
>> I build great teams of people with complementary strengths. This means
>> that
>> I believe that best decisions come informed by a range of views, and that
>> I
>> respect a wide plurality of opinions. It also means that I choose to
>> surround myself with people who are strong, which often requires
>> negotiating conflicts.
>>
>> How have I spent my first three weeks at the WMF:
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Reading and watching: wikis, lists, talk pages, annual plans, reports,
>> videos, emails and videos
>> -
>>
>> Dozens of 1:1s with staff, board, and community members
>> -
>>
>> Attending the Zurich hackathon
>>
>> -
>>
>> Participating in the recent Board meeting
>> -
>>
>> Progress with ongoing decisions, such as the Terms of Use discussion
>> -
>>
>> Deep-dive into product roadmap and data analytics
>> -
>>
>> Four days of deep-dive and knowledge transfer with Sue
>> -
>>
>> IRC office hours, writing my first blog, and engaging on my talk page
>> -
>>
>> Training to be an even more effective communicator for the media
>> -
>>
>> Review of on-going product initiatives: mobile, Flow, and VE
>> -
>>
>> Recruiting
>>
>>
>> What I found to be challenging:
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> The extensive documentation, which provides plenty of context, but
>> makes
>> it hard to find distilled essences of historical decisions quickly.
>> -
>>
>> The complexity of the community, roles, differences in points of view
>> and perspectives.
>>
>>
>> What is coming:
>>
>> -
>>
>> A deep-dive into a few selected projects that are already in the
>> works,
>> to understand where they are currently, what the expected outcomes
>> are, and
>> how we measure success;
>> -
>>
>> A retreat with the c-level leadership to align our work, and identify
>> and address immediate Foundation priorities; and
>> -
>>
>> Starting the process for our next strategic planning exercise, which
>> will be different from last tim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[James Salsman]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>...
> Allocation should follow strategic priorities and it
> is the strategy that helps answer this question.

On this point, it should be enormously helpful to point out that the
only strategic goal which the Foundation has ever failed to achieve,
and has consistently failed to achieve, is this one:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation

That specific strategic priority of increasing participation is the
focus of the sixteen proposed additional strategic goals below. Some
people have substantial objections to some of them, but I'm not clear
on the details. Nobody has suggested any reason that Foundation goals
would not benefit from at least an attempt at alignment to volunteer
contributing editor preferences on these issues.

But what have I forgotten? What have I left out? If I could only get
one suggestion for every two people who take issue with specific
things already on the list, I would feel a lot more comfortable and
confident that there isn't anything being forgotten.

>... On a more operational scale, resources tend go
> to where the users are or where the opportunity is.
> When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
> hypothesis that it would yield results.

I agree with measuring what is likely to work best, but for some of
these proposals, including some of the lowest hanging fruit, that is
very hard. So again, I recommend depending on the wisdom of
contributing editors. To that end, an editor survey is something which
really needs to be done to prep for this. I trust the Board and Staff
to be able to veto things which are unworkable and reach through to
the opportunities in an agile fashion. What I don't understand are the
few who suggest that the Foundation should not be more active on
trying to improve the lot in life of potential volunteer editors. How
can that possibly be part of a strategy to increase participation?

1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com

2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and its protocols without reservation

3. Increase infrastructure spending

4. Increase education spending

5. Public school class size reduction

6. College subsidy with income-based repayment terms

7. More steeply progressive taxation

8. Negative interest on excess reserves

9. Telecommuting

10. Workweek length reduction

11. Single-payer health care

12. Renewable power purchase

13. Increased data center hardware power efficiency

14. Increased security against eavesdropping

15. Metropolitan broadband

16. Oppose monopolization of software, communications, publishing, and
finance industries

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Anders Wennersten]

Thanks for this update.

Ii is refreshing to see both your will to act in accordance with our 
tradition of transparency and also to see your open curious approach to 
your new assignment (and your will to start up strategy work).


I get two reflections when I read through your mail.

Do not forget to learn of the real wikimedia world behind the SF office 
and the English community. With your background familiar with russian 
language, why not visit:
*our Ukraine chapter where they have a fascinating story of their 
efforts with the Ukraine language and culture and being a key actor in 
the build up of an Ukrainian identity, which effect we have seen this 
year in the news daily (and where one member even had to our sorrow to 
pay with his life defending the rights on free knowledge for all on 
Euromajdan)
*our Russian chapter where they have been extremely successful in 
keeping its independence (and existence) away from the autocratic 
authorizes and even winning respect from top key persons in their 
political hierarchy. And they have been most successful in our movement 
in fighting off some of the most awful POV attacks we have seen (in 
their case mostly from fascist)


Also do not forget to look into but what we are NOT doing in our 
swdevelopment, but ought to. We are seeing many commercial companies 
looking into how to make money from the content of Wikipedia by 
introducing new type of readers interfaces put on top of Wikipedia. 
There are Californain companies looking into developing a Q&A type of 
interface, and Google are for the moment nice to us, but what if they 
became less nice and steered away search hit away from Wikipedia?


Good luck in your job, and hope to meet you in some part of the 
strategic work that now soon seems to get started


Anders
(being the most active contributer on Swedish Wikipedia & member of FDC 
until July 1)



Lila Tretikov skrev 2014-05-28 01:53:

Hello Wikimedians,

I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to know
a little more about who I am.

  I believe the most precious commodity in life is time. I seek challenges
worthy of it. I do not work for a job, I work for impact and I chose this
role above all others because I believe this is a critical moment for the
future of our movement.

I also believe no one person can be good at everything, myself included, so
I build great teams of people with complementary strengths. This means that
I believe that best decisions come informed by a range of views, and that I
respect a wide plurality of opinions. It also means that I choose to
surround myself with people who are strong, which often requires
negotiating conflicts.

How have I spent my first three weeks at the WMF:


-

Reading and watching: wikis, lists, talk pages, annual plans, reports,
videos, emails and videos
-

Dozens of 1:1s with staff, board, and community members
-

Attending the Zurich hackathon
-

Participating in the recent Board meeting
-

Progress with ongoing decisions, such as the Terms of Use discussion
-

Deep-dive into product roadmap and data analytics
-

Four days of deep-dive and knowledge transfer with Sue
-

IRC office hours, writing my first blog, and engaging on my talk page
-

Training to be an even more effective communicator for the media
-

Review of on-going product initiatives: mobile, Flow, and VE
-

Recruiting


What I found to be challenging:


-

The extensive documentation, which provides plenty of context, but makes
it hard to find distilled essences of historical decisions quickly.
-

The complexity of the community, roles, differences in points of view
and perspectives.


What is coming:

-

A deep-dive into a few selected projects that are already in the works,
to understand where they are currently, what the expected outcomes are, and
how we measure success;
-

A retreat with the c-level leadership to align our work, and identify
and address immediate Foundation priorities; and
-

Starting the process for our next strategic planning exercise, which
will be different from last time, and focused on improving our ability to
react quickly and adjust as necessary to opportunities and challenges.


These are the things I’ve been working on -- but I know that there’s a lot
more that you as community members have to offer, and much more that I can
learn. Here’s just a few of the things I’m looking forward to from you:


-

Engaging with the strategic planning process;
-

Continuing to provide feedback and on beta features, products, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Lila Tretikov]

MZMcBride -- We are a little bit in the tricky situation because our
strategy has not been updated yet. Allocation should follow strategic
priorities and it is the strategy that helps answer this question. On a
more operational scale, resources tend go to where the users are or where
the opportunity is. When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
hypothesis that it would yield results.

I am thinking through this now and will post more thoughts as we begin
planning for the strategy update.

L


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Lila Tretikov wrote:
> >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
> >immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
> >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
> >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
> >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
> >know a little more about who I am.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
>
> >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
> >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
> >once!); [...]
>
> I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
> scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest Wikimedia
> Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
> need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
>
> As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia Foundation
> developers and other staff specifically focused on the English Wikipedia
> and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such as
> Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no direct
> attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" has
> become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the red-headed
> stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a goal
> to do better in this area.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Wil,

reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.

As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.

I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).

If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.

best,

dariusz "pundit"



On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>
> I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> ostracized.
>
> That's right: *afraid*
>
> I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>
>
>
> . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
>
> ,Wil
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
> > hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
> >
> > Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
> > that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
> >
> >
> > Pete Forsyth writes:
> >> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
> >> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
> >> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
> >
> > Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
> > would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
> > there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
> >
> >
> > Erik Moeller writes:
> >> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
> [month]
> >
> > Wil Sinclair writes:
> >> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
> >> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
> >
> > I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
> > interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
> > make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
> > perspective...
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
> > Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guideli