[Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
On 14/07/14 17:25, Pine W wrote: Hi community members, snip Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. This idea would split the community to the disadvantage of both 'halves'. I suspect the majority of editors (and certainly readers) have no idea about these difficulties between the foundation and its volunteers. I do think the WMF should be paying attention! Regards, Richard. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
Fæ an Theo have made some good points please have a look at the talk page of the guidelines and suggest what may be moved to the guidelines themselves or BB possible more discussion needed. Richard. On 13/07/14 00:16, Theo10011 wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014, Richard Ames rich...@ames.id.au wrote: I think it is very difficult to have hard 'rules'. The guidelines have been published and are referred to in the footer of each messages sent from this list. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Ya, those are far from established or instructive in cases of moderator involvement. I started those[1], and even I don't agree with the current draft. They weren't written for Foundation-l/Wikimedia-l necessarily, originally proposed on a private, now defunct list and edited by a small minority from there. To the best of my recollection, there was no vetting by a larger community at the time. That page had a dedicated section about moderation[2], and suggested practices that were removed all together - with guidelines to warn before any moderator action, along with a recourse in case of disputes. A somewhat similar approach as admin actions. I suppose they could still be used as a starting point, if there is a need to have these written down. -Theo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelinesaction=history [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelinesoldid=3544960 Regards, Richard. On 11/07/14 20:28, Fæ wrote: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- The greatest collection of shared knowledge in history. Help Wikipedia, participate now: http://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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] WMF's volunteers
Since the brouhaha of May 2013 I've been thinking the relationship between the foundation and it's volunteers. I have assembled some references and thoughts at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ariconte/Volunteer_Management I would welcome edits and/or talk page contributions. Regards, Richard. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
I am interested in community strategy but have very different topics in mind *how should we handle the 50-100 projects that today in practice are dead. They are open for anyone (besides vandals that already infest these) to hi-jack *how should we handle the 5-10 projects that are already hi-jacket and spreading info contradictory to our values? (think belarous wikipedia) *Could we find means to help struggling communitiies, there are several having a hard time neutrilizing POV, internal fight and even having problem neutralising vandal attacks *how could we spread best practice to make certain our project do not unnecessary diverge *and the complex of bot generation over several projects - wikidata where efforts for the moment are not harmonized as they ought to etc Anders Pine W skrev 2014-07-14 09:25: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [tangential] What happens when digital cities are abandoned?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/what-happens-when-digital-cities-are-abandoned/373941/ Article on what once-thriving Internet communities feel like. Includes Jason Scott of the Archive Team. - 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [tangential] What happens when digital cities are abandoned?
And a more newsy piece on the same topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/where-online-services-go-when-they-die/374099/ On 14 July 2014 12:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/what-happens-when-digital-cities-are-abandoned/373941/ Article on what once-thriving Internet communities feel like. Includes Jason Scott of the Archive Team. - 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
I am interested in community strategy to tackle such things as 1) exposing missing, confusing, or outdated local policies by using policy comparisons cross-wiki 2) handling multi-language issues such as highlighting article-for-deletion discussions for each language in which the article exists, not just the local one 3) defining an embedded system factor by automatic checking of similarity of metadata of articles across languages and projects 4) how can we emphasize techniques that attract contributions that are 100% non-controversial and fun at the same time? 5) how can we organize local x-language meet-up days across the globe using our international network of chapters? 6) how can we set up a new Wikicouch project whereby Wikipedians can couch surf (I mean more group editting rather than sleeping) with other Wikipedians' across the globe On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: I am interested in community strategy but have very different topics in mind *how should we handle the 50-100 projects that today in practice are dead. They are open for anyone (besides vandals that already infest these) to hi-jack *how should we handle the 5-10 projects that are already hi-jacket and spreading info contradictory to our values? (think belarous wikipedia) *Could we find means to help struggling communitiies, there are several having a hard time neutrilizing POV, internal fight and even having problem neutralising vandal attacks *how could we spread best practice to make certain our project do not unnecessary diverge *and the complex of bot generation over several projects - wikidata where efforts for the moment are not harmonized as they ought to etc Anders Pine W skrev 2014-07-14 09:25: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
I'd agree with Risker more or less wholeheartedly - communication is a multilateral thing not a unilateral thing, and I think we dropped the ball on handling this discussion properly. This certainly isn't new - holding a large-scale community discussion is *hard* and both the community and WMF tend to have problems instigating and managing it - but this could have been a lot better. I've been mostly offwiki for the past few weeks (and had my attention sapped by a different RFC), but I'll also put my hand up and say I should have done something - I normally try and make sure discussions like this get advertised at a suitable level and I was vaguely aware this one was going on. Mea culpa. I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so, bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania - would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried to dump it into a how to run a large project RFC, and what doesn't work page somewhere? Andrew. On 14 July 2014 09:04, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It's time to face reality here: The WMF didn't screw up this RFC, we the English Wikipedia community did. When we have RFCs that are of interest to a broad portion of the community and will have an impact on the entire community, we do certain things. We advertise it on the watchlist. We arrange for a panel of administrators with experience in assessing consensus to close the discussion - sometimes we line them up before the discussion even happens. We maintain discipline on the RFC page so that there aren't acres of discussion there, and move it to the talk page. We encourage the most fervent supporters and opposers to remain calm and to move on once they've expressed their position. That's what we do when we think something is important - like all the pending changes RFCs and the current conflict of interest discusssions, and the recent discussions about whether certain edit counters should be opt-in or opt-out or automatic. None of those things happened with this RFC. No watchlist notice. No advance planning for closure. A completely undisciplined RFC. An inexperienced closer who obviously got it wrong, since his initial close didn't match the discussion in the RFC. Instead of people questioning the wrong close, someone writes a script to enact the erroneous close and then encourages an administrator to apply it to the Mediawiki.common.js without explaining exactly what it would do. An administrator who doesn't have the knowledge base to understand the code he was adding adds it - on a page where every other entry for the past several years has been made by experienced and knowledgeable developers. It was entirely correct that his code was reverted - it didn't do what was intended, and it adversely affected every user of English Wikipedia, whether or not they cared about Media Viewer. It was entirely correct that the administrator was warned not to repeat the action - you don't mess around with site-wide impacts - and that he was told the potential consequences if he repeated the action. Warnings are routine and expected if people act outside of our accepted standards or cause harm, whether intended or not. He needed to know that his actions were a big deal with serious consequences. And now we have the nerve to act as though this is all the WMF's fault. It's not. Every step that led to this breakdown in communication, this disruption in the relationship between the community and the WMF, was taken by members of the English Wikipedia community, with the exception of the reversion of site-breaking code. We did this all by ourselves. I'll even put my hand up and say geez, maybe I should have pushed harder for a watchlist notice when I saw the RFC - but the obvious indifference to the issue blinkered me too. We should be disappointed - but we should be looking at ourselves and fixing the problems we're responsible for. The WMF isn't perfect, and it's made some incredibly bone-headed decisions in the past. It's also made some really good decisions, and none of them were entirely perfect right out of the box and needed tweaking. Instead of rejecting those decisions outright because they failed to be perfect, we all worked together - WMF, developers, and community members from all sorts of projects - to get them right. We need to go back to that perspective. Everyone does. Not just the WMF - our community does too. Risker/Anne On 14 July 2014 01:40, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Gryllida, As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC, and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of participants beyond what is necessary to establish consensus. Furthermore, any assertion that the MV RfC was invalid because of its advertising or because it had too few
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
Bear in mind WikiPedia =/= WikiMedia. Imo all of the below and about 70-80% of the topics previously brough up in this thread can be solved/actioned/discussed/amended/etc by the community solely through Village Pump (or other relevant forums) without a single person involved (ever) from WMF or any of the chapters. Balazs 1) exposing missing, confusing, or outdated local policies by using policy comparisons cross-wiki 2) handling multi-language issues such as highlighting article-for-deletion discussions for each language in which the article exists, not just the local one 3) defining an embedded system factor by automatic checking of similarity of metadata of articles across languages and projects 4) how can we emphasize techniques that attract contributions that are 100% non-controversial and fun at the same time? 5) how can we organize local x-language meet-up days across the globe using our international network of chapters? 6) how can we set up a new Wikicouch project whereby Wikipedians can couch surf (I mean more group editting rather than sleeping) with other Wikipedians' across the globe On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: I am interested in community strategy but have very different topics in mind *how should we handle the 50-100 projects that today in practice are dead. They are open for anyone (besides vandals that already infest these) to hi-jack *how should we handle the 5-10 projects that are already hi-jacket and spreading info contradictory to our values? (think belarous wikipedia) *Could we find means to help struggling communitiies, there are several having a hard time neutrilizing POV, internal fight and even having problem neutralising vandal attacks *how could we spread best practice to make certain our project do not unnecessary diverge *and the complex of bot generation over several projects - wikidata where efforts for the moment are not harmonized as they ought to etc Anders Pine W skrev 2014-07-14 09:25: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
On 14/07/2014, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: Balazs, It's interesting that you feel that way, because I disagree entirely. Out of curiosity, have you ever met another Wikipedian in real life, and do you feel that meet-ups are beneficial to the movement? Jane Jane, Without a single person involved (ever) from WMF or any of the chapters has nothing to do with meeting other Wikimedians in real life (or Wikipedians for that matter). The comment was about whether strategic discussion automatically means the WMF or Chapters need to be in the middle of it. They don't, even at real life meetings. As an example, in the UK our Wiki-meets are not the domain of Wikimedia UK, they are independent. Keeping them that way ensures that if the community of UK Wikimedians have issues with their local Chapter or WMF funding, then we are not in the bizarre position of only being able to talk to each other at chapter/WMF sponsored and controlled events or in chapter/WMF controlled forums. If this were the case then it would rapidly only become possible to talk about Public Relations positive affairs. Volunteer community independence and associated free speech are generally thought to be a good thing for the purposes of governance, though not everyone agrees, or at least, by their actions support this philosophy when faced with Public Relations non-positive subjects. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Subject for Wikimedia Hackathon(s) 2014-2015: CoSyne
Hi Romaine, this is to remind you that the CoSyne project was a research project, sponsored by the EU and conducted by different partners. The research has been concluded and the results have been reported early 2013..The technical infrastructure has sinds then been dismantled, so it will not be that easy to restart CoSyne. Regards, Frans *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair fr...@wikimedia.nl +31 6 5333 9499 http://www.wikimedia.nl/ *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* *Postadres*: *Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht3511 LH Utrecht ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 2014-07-09 23:44 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com: I doubt if these tools are similar. But I do think they can benefit from each other. Romaine 2014-07-09 16:03 GMT+02:00 Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr: Le 09/07/2014 14:33, Romaine Wiki a écrit : As a subject of one/more hackathons I would like to recommend CoSyne [1]. CoSyne is translation and multilingual synchronisation tool. The project was set up by Wikimedia Netherlands together with several universities and other partners, including the EU. The tool makes it possible to translate much more easier from one Wikipedia (etc) to another with much better quality translations than existing translating tools. It does not matter if an article is already written, it is possible with this tool to expand existing articles and to update articles with a new section when on one Wikipedia this was added. It makes it possible to exchange information in more languages and helps users to keep the articles up-to-date. I have tested the Bèta version of this tool and these tests were very successful. [1] https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/CoSyne Romaine Hello, Seems it is very similiar to the content translation Wikimedia i18n team is working on: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation Demo video: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:CX_Section_Alignment_Preview_and_Basic_Editing.webm -- Antoine hashar Musso ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decision on FDC member appointments
Hi, On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: Dear friends: We are pleased to inform you that the WMF Board of Trustees has come to a decision about which four candidates to appoint to the FDC. It wasn't easy; as is evident from the nominations, the caliber of the candidates was very high. The resolution is now published in https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee_Membership_2014 We have selected four appointees as follows: 1)Anne Clin (Risker) 2)Matanya Moses (matanya) 3)Dumisani Ndubane (Thuvack) 4)Osmar Valdebenito (B1mbo) Thanks Paticio and Bishakha for handling the tough job of selecting the candidates for FDC well. Congratulations and best wishes to all the new appointees, I am sure that FDC will exceed its past performance in the years to come. Sincerely Arjuna ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Gryllida, As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC, and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of participants beyond what is necessary to establish consensus. Furthermore, any assertion that the MV RfC was invalid because of its advertising or because it had too few participants would open up countless RfCs to being challenged for the same reason. I believe that the form of the MediaViewer RfC and participation in it were sufficient to establish a legitimate consensus. I am still thinking through the effects that this situation has on the WMF-community relationship. I'm pretty discouraged, and I know others are too. Pine The common practice is that the wider the effect of the change called for in an RfC, the larger and more representative the group of participants must be for the result to be binding. So for something like MediaViewer, the pool of people responding should be quite large. In this case, it wasn't. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
Balázs Viczián, 14/07/2014 13:53: Imo all of the below and about 70-80% of the topics previously brough up in this thread can be solved/actioned/discussed/amended/etc by the community So you're confirming that they're on topic for the proposal :) which was «Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options». Interestingly, no topic so far was mentioned by more than one person among those who replied so far. Such a list of topics would therefore result in everyone talking past each other. To avoid that, maybe topic proposals should be about generic issues and medium/long-term goals rather than about your pet peeve or pet proposal. As a reminder, thousands of such atomic items are already best collected on our wikis, for instance * https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Issues * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals where I encourage you to add stubs for each idea you have. The problem is always identifying a common ground where to actually meet and build a shared understanding of the way forward. (Or even just a self-consistent summary of all opinions.) Read https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force subpages again, 5 years later, if you doubt. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
Pine, please read what risker said in this thread. It is not about proper paperwork, it is about choosing who to reach and what to communicate to them. Communicate with multimedia team about getting an objective picture and doing the statistics right. This is a broad interesting topic that, as you may see at the rfc talk page, would make use of a structured and free approach with better software (and rather interestingly, potentionally input from users of various sister projects and languages). Gryllida. On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, at 15:40, Pine W wrote: Hi Gryllida, As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC, and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of participants beyond what is necessary to establish consensus. Furthermore, any assertion that the MV RfC was invalid because of its advertising or because it had too few participants would open up countless RfCs to being challenged for the same reason. I believe that the form of the MediaViewer RfC and participation in it were sufficient to establish a legitimate consensus. I am still thinking through the effects that this situation has on the WMF-community relationship. I'm pretty discouraged, and I know others are too. Pine On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote: Pine and all, Please read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Proposal_to_reach_consistency.2Fagreement_first.2C_before_actioning_this_RfC Gryllida. On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, at 15:03, Pine W wrote: This discussion has closed on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC Will WMF deactivate MediaViewer on English Wikipedia per community consensus? Also, as WMF probably knows, Commons is currently having a similar discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, Pine It seems like there are a number of more relevant strategic issues than who hosts the sites. I know that the power struggle between some people on the English Wikipedia and the WMF has captivated your attention for some time, but it is a minor issue compared to the other challenges the movement faces in achieving its mission. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 7/14/2014 4:43 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so, bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania - would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried to dump it into a how to run a large project RFC, and what doesn't work page somewhere? There certainly would be usefulness, so I hope there would be equivalent interest. I'd be interested in seeing it, at any rate. --Michael Snow ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 14 July 2014 09:55, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 7/14/2014 4:43 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so, bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania - would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried to dump it into a how to run a large project RFC, and what doesn't work page somewhere? There certainly would be usefulness, so I hope there would be equivalent interest. I'd be interested in seeing it, at any rate. Me too, Andrew. I think we actually do need some sort of checklist or guidance document on how to deal with these sorts of issues. In this particular case, it had the added element of affecting readers possibly even more so than editors, so some thoughts on how to involve readers in discussions that affect their usage of the site would be good. Risker/Anne ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
Pine, We need more of - decentralized development so that people can write new gadgets and extensions easier like firefox jetpack for example.. Each project needs its own editing and feedback tools that it would happily design on wiki in collaborative fashion - means to encourage more content work from community with less noise and drama I could expect wmf to do the former but the latter is up to us all, you and me... As people replied, please mind that you do not know the situation in other projects and languages - proper feedback or outreach software is needed here and community can shape a spec at least, which the wmf can code or fund through its Ieg grants program. I am sure you could draft the idea and help it evolve, then apply for a grant and hire someone to do it. The brainstorming might be too early, I am yet to see any proper analysis of what the users /really/ need or have trouble with (no, not learning the markup or getting articles or uploads in, unlike the current focuses). We need a lot more information/feedback here than a brainstorming session... Gryllida. On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Pine W wrote: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. Hi Pine, I think it would be much more productive to think about these kinds of issues (and indeed those that Jane and Anders have brought up) inside a Wikimedia movement strategic planning process, rather than trying to set up a separate one (even more so, a separate one with an implicit assumption of creating a project fork, which I think is what you're proposing). I think your suggested solution is actually at a different scale to the problem you're having. I can certainly see there are upset people. But I think the way to move things forward would be to have more conversation about How quickly do technical developments from WMF need to go? and How can we get a smoother relationship between WMF product developers and long-term editors?. I think those are much more sensible conversations to have, rather than either Should MediaViewer be on or off by default? (that's been answered) or How can I replace the Wikimedia Foundation with something I like more? (which is unlikely to achieve very much). Regards, Chris ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. I think this isn't as mad as it may sound. It seems some editors of the English Wikipedia have a strong dislike for many of the WMF decisions, and distrust the WMF staff to make the calls that are best for our shared goals, and vice versa. It's been often said that competition would be good for the project. It would lead to duplicated effort, yes. It also gives the opportunity to learn from each other. I have always believed, and I still believe, that the success of English Wikipedia hinges on the ability of the community to generate content, and that that's the absolutely most important part of English Wikipedia - all else, including consumption by end users - follows from that. A fork where one project is more content creation focused, and one more end-user presentation focused, with strong cooperation between the two projects would IMO be absolutely great. Who has the keys to the servers is less important IMO (which also keeps the option open for an in-house fork). As an aside, I don't think there is such a thing as community values. I sincerely doubt there is even such a thing as a community, or community consensus, even for a single project (though it might (still) exist for smaller projects), and certainly not for the WikiMedia movement as a whole. -- Martijn ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Subject for Wikimedia Hackathon(s) 2014-2015: CoSyne
Hi, WMHU would be interested in *hosting *a Hackathon in Hungary (anywhere) but we would need a couple of international volunteers to help filling the core of event (finding topics and speakers or building up the content in general). In exchange, the rest (from side events to the smallest details) can be left with us :) Balazs 2014-07-14 14:53 GMT+02:00 Frans Grijzenhout fr...@wikimedia.nl: Hi Romaine, this is to remind you that the CoSyne project was a research project, sponsored by the EU and conducted by different partners. The research has been concluded and the results have been reported early 2013..The technical infrastructure has sinds then been dismantled, so it will not be that easy to restart CoSyne. Regards, Frans *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair fr...@wikimedia.nl +31 6 5333 9499 http://www.wikimedia.nl/ *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* *Postadres*: *Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht3511 LH Utrecht ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 2014-07-09 23:44 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com: I doubt if these tools are similar. But I do think they can benefit from each other. Romaine 2014-07-09 16:03 GMT+02:00 Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr: Le 09/07/2014 14:33, Romaine Wiki a écrit : As a subject of one/more hackathons I would like to recommend CoSyne [1]. CoSyne is translation and multilingual synchronisation tool. The project was set up by Wikimedia Netherlands together with several universities and other partners, including the EU. The tool makes it possible to translate much more easier from one Wikipedia (etc) to another with much better quality translations than existing translating tools. It does not matter if an article is already written, it is possible with this tool to expand existing articles and to update articles with a new section when on one Wikipedia this was added. It makes it possible to exchange information in more languages and helps users to keep the articles up-to-date. I have tested the Bèta version of this tool and these tests were very successful. [1] https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/CoSyne Romaine Hello, Seems it is very similiar to the content translation Wikimedia i18n team is working on: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation Demo video: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:CX_Section_Alignment_Preview_and_Basic_Editing.webm -- Antoine hashar Musso ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comment on the content, not the contributor - with staff?
On Thursday, July 3, 2014, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: What can we, as volunteers, do when we believe staff have gone too far (besides create drama on a mailing list)? It depends on the area and the problem, but there are enough WMF employees with public exposure and community background to choose from. The Engineering Community team should be able to help technical volunteers having problems with WMF employees. The community liaisons (now Community Engagement team) are also good points of contact. Of course, each of us employees has a manager and a HR contact, and if the problem is exceptional they could be the ultimate points of contact within the WMF. Does this answer your question? -- 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
Well maybe all of you are independently wealthy, have laptop and and will travel, but as I see it, for the rest of us, without travel budget facilitated by WMF and chapters, I don't see how we can achieve meetups to do any brainstorming at all. And poring over lists of ideas tucked away in the recesses of the deep dark Meta is not my idea of a good time (but as ever, thanks for the links Nemo) On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote: Pine, We need more of - decentralized development so that people can write new gadgets and extensions easier like firefox jetpack for example.. Each project needs its own editing and feedback tools that it would happily design on wiki in collaborative fashion - means to encourage more content work from community with less noise and drama I could expect wmf to do the former but the latter is up to us all, you and me... As people replied, please mind that you do not know the situation in other projects and languages - proper feedback or outreach software is needed here and community can shape a spec at least, which the wmf can code or fund through its Ieg grants program. I am sure you could draft the idea and help it evolve, then apply for a grant and hire someone to do it. The brainstorming might be too early, I am yet to see any proper analysis of what the users /really/ need or have trouble with (no, not learning the markup or getting articles or uploads in, unlike the current focuses). We need a lot more information/feedback here than a brainstorming session... Gryllida. On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Pine W wrote: Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
I'm too lazy to read all above and below but I think we might try. Wikicommunities blackouted wikis protest to some political laws in some countries which is beyond not-a-soapbox pillar but they can't stand WMF's pressure. Should be vice versa IMHO. --Base 14.07.2014 10:25, Pine W написав(ла): Hi community members, I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past few days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and pessimism, especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to negotiate with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options. Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are not likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and laying some foundations. Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF for hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is aligned with community values. 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at Wikimedia's founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested in participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about how we want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have time. If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may need additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond to me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level of the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we need to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. Thanks, 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decision on FDC member appointments
Adding my voice of appreciation to the outgoing members - Anders, Arjuna, Mike and Yuri - for the extraordinary commitment and energy it took to get this inaugural FDC off the ground, and functioning as well as it has been. The Advisory Group's unanimous endorsement of the FDC is no little measure due to the work all of you contributed. Thank you so much for everything you put into it; I hope you gained immeasurably from the experience too (beyond the jet lag and the complaints!). :-) Thank you too, to Bishakha and Patricio and the rest of the Board for the selection of the new appointees (and welcome, Anne, Dumisane, Matanya and Osmar!). The movement was lucky to have such a strong pool of candidates interested in the positions (and I hope this will continue to be true), but it must have made the decision difficult indeed. Looking forward to working with all the new appointees, and continuing to work with Anders, Arjuna, Mike and Yuri in other ways. Warmly, Anasuya On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: Dear friends: We are pleased to inform you that the WMF Board of Trustees has come to a decision about which four candidates to appoint to the FDC. It wasn't easy; as is evident from the nominations, the caliber of the candidates was very high. The resolution is now published in https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee_Membership_2014 We have selected four appointees as follows: 1)Anne Clin (Risker) 2)Matanya Moses (matanya) 3)Dumisani Ndubane (Thuvack) 4)Osmar Valdebenito (B1mbo) Thanks Paticio and Bishakha for handling the tough job of selecting the candidates for FDC well. Congratulations and best wishes to all the new appointees, I am sure that FDC will exceed its past performance in the years to come. Sincerely Arjuna ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [tangential] What happens when digital cities are abandoned?
On 14 July 2014 12:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/what-happens-when-digital-cities-are-abandoned/373941/ Article on what once-thriving Internet communities feel like. Includes Jason Scott of the Archive Team. Digital history is however far better documented than even fairly recent meatspace stuff. For example there a canals where we have no records of them for periods lasting decades. More commonly we have the stuff published at the yearly shareholder's meeting at little else. -- geni ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's volunteers
This is very weird. Remember that we are a (multi-lingual, cough cough) community with a Foundation - not the other way around. There's no need for this kind of weird organisation of volunteering related to Wikimedia. What was the purpose of this page? Alex Monk (in my capacity as a volunteer, dealing partly with some Wikimedia software and some OTRS queues) On 14 July 2014 11:10, Richard Ames rich...@ames.id.au wrote: Since the brouhaha of May 2013 I've been thinking the relationship between the foundation and it's volunteers. I have assembled some references and thoughts at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ariconte/Volunteer_ Management I would welcome edits and/or talk page contributions. Regards, Richard. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?
On 14/07/2014, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: Well maybe all of you are independently wealthy, have laptop and and will travel, but as I see it, for the rest of us, without travel budget facilitated by WMF and chapters, I don't see how we can achieve meetups to do any brainstorming at all. And poring over lists of ideas tucked away in the recesses of the deep dark Meta is not my idea of a good time (but as ever, thanks for the links Nemo) We have very different views of the world. I have no expectation that Wikimedia donations should pay for me to go to local Wikimeets/meet-ups (which cost me about £3 in bus travel). Similarly, as a member of the Steering Group for the GWToolset, I was happy to have several significant strategy meetings via Google Hangout, which cost the participants precisely nothing and Wikimedia nothing in expenses, even though we were deciding how to invest a few hundred thousand euros. Yes, some people may get scholarships to travel to Wikimania or other conferences, however my understanding is that this would be limited to those presenting. A lot can be done using virtual tools, and we should all be experts in making this work well. I would much rather virtual discussion be used for maximum effect and the default choice, so that flying people around the planet is kept for special events with high measurable returns for the money spent. I still regret that for every Wikimania so far, we have not cracked the virtual participation problem by live-streaming and accepting questions via live-chat or similar. Anyway, this is a bit tangential... Fae -- 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New website for the New England Wikimedians user group
Great to see the website and read about upcoming events! On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Great photo - hope to see lots of you in London at Wikimania. On 14 July 2014 05:32, Kevin Rutherford ktr...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello Fellow Wikimedians, I am pleased to announce that New England Wikimedians’ user group website has officially launched, and is located at ne-wikimedians.org/. I would also like to extend a huge thanks to Wikimedia DC's Technical Infrastructure Committee for helping make this site a possibility, as they were quite instrumental in ensuring that everything worked out in the end. As always, if anyone has any questions or suggestions, please feel free to e-mail me. Kevin Rutherford Co-Chair, New England Wikimedians Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WikimediaNewEngland Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WikimediaNE ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Alex Wang Program Officer Project Event Grants Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home +1 415-839-6885 Skype: alexvwang ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] Deprecating print-on-demand functionality
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Luca Martinelli martinellil...@gmail.com wrote: so the Book Creator will still be active, maybe under another name, maybe with another engine, but still active? Same name and functionality, just the Order a printed book feature will disappear. Erik That is great -- the book creator and PDF tools are both good tools, and are very handy for projects big and small, especially projects like Wikibooks and Wikivoyage that need to make offline reading easy. (I have actually used both tools the most on internal wikis; when I need to catch up on big discussions, I've made many pdfs from meta that I can read offline.) It was a worthwhile experiment with Pediapress, and I'm glad they stuck with it as long as they did! best, -- Phoebe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
