Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation global ban policy
On 20 January 2015 at 03:30, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The page itself is interesting, as is some of the related discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible. There exist people with actual restraining orders against editing; as I understand it, that's the escalation step after this. - 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
[Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move. Now they hide themselves behind a collective account https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice issuing batches of global locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALogtype=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMFOfficediff=10982297. As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I do not object global locks at all. What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the community interaction that Lila called so deeply for. They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the site and users, actually at their sole discretion. The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community. ___ 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 has lost its path
2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. Strong +1. 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org: As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details. Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility. If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms that the legal department consider adeguate. Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board of external, indipendent experts for this. (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs). C ___ 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 has lost its path
That's the question of trust: there have been too many situations recently when WMF asked us just to believe: - believe that there were reasons to ban somebody (Russavia) - believe that there were reasons to switch-off fundraising in Russia - believe that most readers prefer MultimediaViewer - believe that there is positive feedback and results from existing annoying banners for fundraising. I don't want to believe, I want to have transparency. rubin 2015-01-20 15:11 GMT+03:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org: As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details. Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia Chris On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote: Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible. rubin 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org: It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move. Now they hide themselves behind a collective account https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice issuing batches of global locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog; type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=10982297. As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I do not object global locks at all. What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the community interaction that Lila called so deeply for. They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the site and users, actually at their sole discretion. The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community. ___ 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 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. best, Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. pundit On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, rubin.happy rubin.ha...@gmail.com wrote: That's the question of trust: there have been too many situations recently when WMF asked us just to believe: - believe that there were reasons to ban somebody (Russavia) - believe that there were reasons to switch-off fundraising in Russia - believe that most readers prefer MultimediaViewer - believe that there is positive feedback and results from existing annoying banners for fundraising. I don't want to believe, I want to have transparency. rubin 2015-01-20 15:11 GMT+03:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org: As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details. Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia Chris On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote: Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible. rubin 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org: It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move. Now they hide themselves behind a collective account https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice issuing batches of global locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog; type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=10982297. As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I do not object global locks at all. What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the community interaction that Lila called so deeply for. They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the site and users, actually at their sole discretion. The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community. ___ 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 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery ___ 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:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details. Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia Chris On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote: Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible. rubin 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org: It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move. Now they hide themselves behind a collective account https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice issuing batches of global locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog; type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=10982297. As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I do not object global locks at all. What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the community interaction that Lila called so deeply for. They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the site and users, actually at their sole discretion. The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community. ___ 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 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery ___ 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 has lost its path
Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible. rubin 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org: It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move. Now they hide themselves behind a collective account https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice issuing batches of global locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog; type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=10982297. As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I do not object global locks at all. What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the community interaction that Lila called so deeply for. They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the site and users, actually at their sole discretion. The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community. ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
Chris Keating wrote: Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly well-equipped to deal with. [citation needed] One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We typically block disruptive accounts and move on. That's basically all we can do and this newly documented process is really no different. I'm not sure creating a shrine to the super-bad is prudent or helpful, particularly when it means degrading community autonomy. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
hi Fae, fair enough, but clearly the Board could decide to delegate the oversight privilege in these cases to community-elected members. best, dj pundit On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the functionaries of high trust you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected by us*. If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community. Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling members with a power of veto. Fae On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. best, Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. pundit -- 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 -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge ___ 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 has lost its path
This is correct, but it supports the question that the board has not a well defined control. A good governance says that the responsible should be proactive. What Chris is saying is perfect, I would not change a word. It means that it's not in conflict with what your saying, but he is already in more advanced step. He has been clear: if something is responsibility of WMF (and the term responsibility has a well defined meaning), it is responsibility of the board except the cases where the board has assigned this responsibility to another body. It does not mean in charge of. Regards On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com: It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does. Yes, I am aware of that. What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more substantial responsability towards the community that this implies. -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ 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 has lost its path
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the functionaries of high trust you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected by us*. If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community. Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling members with a power of veto. Fae On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. best, Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. pundit -- 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] WMF has lost its path
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does. Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly well-equipped to deal with. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth thinking about. Chris On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. Strong +1. 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org: As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details. Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility. If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms that the legal department consider adeguate. Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board of external, indipendent experts for this. (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs). C ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com: It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does. Yes, I am aware of that. What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more substantial responsability towards the community that this implies. Of course there are other possible solutions. 2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the functionaries of high trust you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected by us*. If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community. Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling members with a power of veto. The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or discussing the *merit* of such bans. The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal department and tollows from the projects' terms of use. This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that - indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided by the ToS. With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts, with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be more helpful, but maybe I am wrong. Cristian ___ 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] surveys of active female editors?
+1. Here are some more questions that I would be interested in having answers to: -- What do women who are presently editing find most demotivating about contributing to Wikipedia? -- Have they ever thought of throwing in the towel, and what were the reasons? -- Based on past experience, what aspect of Wikimedia/Wikipedia culture would be most likely to cause them to stop editing at some point in the future? -- What change, if any, would they welcome most to feel good about contributing? You'd need a male control group for comparative work, to establish whether any of the answers are gender-specific. Crossposted to gendergap list. (Maybe someone with access to the research mailing list might like to crosspost this thread there as well.) Andreas On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:22 AM, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: I want to push a Like button on this one. How. Why. I would love to know the answer to these questions. Also, for those who aren't active - why? Lightbreather On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any surveys of active female editors which have asked how they started editing? ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
This explanation is really correct. The board is responsible, the board has the mean to control everything is responsibility of WMF, so the board cannot say to don't know or that they cannot know. This is not a personal opinion but it's a principle in every governance's framework. On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does. Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly well-equipped to deal with. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth thinking about. Chris On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. Strong +1. 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org: As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details. Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility. If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms that the legal department consider adeguate. Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board of external, indipendent experts for this. (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs). C ___ 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 -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We typically block disruptive accounts and move on. As I noted, this is a legal stick, not a computer security one. - 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] WMF has lost its path
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 15:38: As I noted, this is a legal stick There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were required by law. It's possible they were, sure. But we are abandoned to mere speculation from supporters of either interpretation. See talk page on transparency: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#Transparency_reports 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] WMF has lost its path
I appreciate that WMF is taking action to make the communities a safer and friendlier place to do volunteer work. Enforcing the Terms of Service at the Foundation level is right step toward managing the community of WMF wikis that are interconnected but run independently. When we discuss adding another volunteer committee or adding more responsibilities to existing committees that's to do this type of professional level work, we need to think in terms of the budget for proper training and their staff support. If these committees are to function properly they need to have a sound process and adequate resources. I'm not convinced that I've seen a case made for creating another group ( beyond the normal oversight of the BoT) to oversee the work done by the Legal and Community Advocacy Departments in enforcing the ToS by globally banning and locking accounts. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a professional whose work is being evaluated. Sydney Poore Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com: It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does. Yes, I am aware of that. What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more substantial responsability towards the community that this implies. Of course there are other possible solutions. 2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the functionaries of high trust you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected by us*. If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community. Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling members with a power of veto. The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or discussing the *merit* of such bans. The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal department and tollows from the projects' terms of use. This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that - indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided by the ToS. With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts, with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be more helpful, but maybe I am wrong. Cristian ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
I believe it is vital for our survival, that we manage to transform our communities into a more professional way of working then we have today (which very much look the same as 5 or 10 years ago, when we were newbies) I for example think about 50% of our project should be closed down as their quality is so rotten it represent a major risk for our global brand (when and if these are made commonly known). And we cannot accept sysops working as mad despots. Eiither re-election should be made mandatory or a WMF/steward/BoT controlled body should monitor misuse of sysoprights. And in this perspective I am of the opinion that we must also treat bad user more strict. So I welcome this initiative as a very minor first step, even if it surely can be improved Anders David Gerard skrev den 2015-01-20 15:38: On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We typically block disruptive accounts and move on. As I noted, this is a legal stick, not a computer security one. - 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 ___ 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 has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 18:23, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate specific refutation next time. The answer dig through the logs and archives will find no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from many rabid and shifty accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why the WMF acted. Do some homework and figure it out yourself is no answer for an 100 million dollar organization with scores of employees to say. I'm not a 100 million dollar organisation but in any case we have further established that your interest is not in fact openness. You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise the editor of all that privately, No. Your problem is that you are assuming internal WMF communications are privileged (note this term has a very precise legal meaning and that is the way I'm using it). -- 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 has lost its path
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be no you compromised my privacy complaint basis for the individual. It is my understanding that the banned users are informed of the reasons (and possibly also warned prior to ban, but of course this should not always be the case - I can imagine scenarios in which immediate action is needed). best, dariusz pundit -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge ___ 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 has lost its path
On 2015-01-20 18:21, Sydney Poore wrote: Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a professional whose work is being evaluated. Sydney Poore The problem is that WMF already produced a lot of damage, and foremost, damage to their reputation. Russavia at the point he was banned was still a Commons administrator, and he recently survived a desysop discussion. This means he really was trusted by active part of the community (though there was vocal opposition as well). At some point, WMF will need to get volunteer support for some of its actions, and it will be extremely difficult to achieve on Commons. And this is just one of a series of moves they continue to alienate the community with. For me personally, the last straw was not the ban of Russavia, but the accident of I guess last year, when a number of users (not me, I was completely unrelated) were just duly desysopped on WMF internal wiki, because a staffer decided she can manage everything herself (she turned out to be wrong), and no apologies were ever offered, quite the opposite. Community blocks can be (and are sometimes) reversed if needed, but trust and reputation are extremely difficult to recover. I am sorry to write this, but this is how I see the situation. Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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] 1000 Little Masters on-line, a Wikimedia CH / Swiss National Library project
On 2015-01-20 18:51, Charles Andrès wrote: Dear Wikimedians, please find here an information about one of the outcomes of the Wikipedian in Residence experience at the Swiss National Library, a Wikimedia CH initiative. Charles Hi Charles, this is absolutely great, congratulations. Is there a dedicated Commons cat where the images lie? Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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 has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 17:19, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: I guess I don't object much to specific ban reasons not disclosed to the *public* if it at least is publicly said reasons of privacy prohibit us from commenting specifically, however I would object if specific ban reasons were not disclosed to the *banned individual*. It's simple fairness and common decency to tell somebody why he or she has been banned. Consider a user like Russavia who has done a great deal of positive editing, contributed great value, to the WMF projects. He shouldn't just be banned without telling *him* specifically why. Personally I feel he was pushed around at English Wikipedia a lot, that one of his maligned and deleted focus projects Poland Ball was for years worthy of its own article, and that had to be vindicated by its articles in like a dozen of the non-English Wikipedias before, after years, the English Wikipedia administrative bullies finally backed down ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball, now #3 in Google results). However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the relevant logs and archives. Given that this does not satisfy you there would appear to be little point in paying attention to any demands you make for openness. Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be no you compromised my privacy complaint basis for the individual. Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a CC network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which one do you think it is going to do? -- 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
[Wikimedia-l] 1000 Little Masters on-line, a Wikimedia CH / Swiss National Library project
Dear Wikimedians, please find here an information about one of the outcomes of the Wikipedian in Residence experience at the Swiss National Library, a Wikimedia CH initiative. Charles IT: Oltre 1000 Schweizer Kleinmeister on-line La Biblioteca nazionale svizzera ha reso liberamente accessibili, su Wikimedia Commons, più di 1000 opere dei cosiddetti Kleinmeister svizzeri. Si tratta di una serie di paesaggi realizzati tra Settecento e Ottocento che offre uno scorcio ricco di sfaccettature su come apparivano il territorio e la cultura della Svizzera a quel tempo. Grazie alla collaborazione con Wikimedia Svizzera, la Biblioteca nazionale svizzera (BN) è in grado di rende accessibili on-line sempre più documenti di dominio pubblico provenienti dalle sue collezioni. Recentemente sono state caricate oltre 1000 opere dei Kleinmeister svizzeri su Wikimedia Commons, l’archivio multimediale di libero accesso di Wikipedia. Per Kleinmeister svizzeri s’intendono gli artisti attivi tra metà Settecento e metà Ottocento che, con la diffusione del viaggio culturale, iniziarono a immortalare in disegni, acquerelli e dipinti ad olio paesaggi e scene caratteristiche di vita quotidiana, vendendo in seguito le loro opere in originale o riprodotte in stampe ai viaggiatori. L’opera artistica dei Kleinmeister svizzeri offre uno scorcio ricco di sfaccettature sul territorio e la cultura della Svizzera a quel tempo. Per questo motivo è tuttora di grande attualità sia per la storia dell’arte e della cultura, sia per la ricerca nelle scienze naturali. La BN possiede la collezione di Schweizer Kleinmeister dal 1982. In quell’anno Annemarie Gugelmann le cedette la collezione che aveva costituito insieme al fratello Rudolf. Si tratta di una delle donazioni più preziose mai ricevute dalla BN. La fondazione Graphica Helvetica, nata anch’essa dall’impegno dei fratelli Gugelmann, permette di ampliare costantemente la collezione. FR: 1000 petits-maîtres suisses en ligne La Bibliothèque nationale suisse met à disposition plus de 1000 tableaux des petits-maîtres suisses sur Wikimedia Commons. Il s’agit de paysages des 18e et 19e siècles. La collection donne un riche aperçu des paysages et de la culture suisses d’antan. Grâce à sa collaboration avec Wikimedia Suisse, la Bibliothèque nationale suisse (BN) met régulièrement en ligne des documents libres de droits de ses collections. Elle vient de téléverser sur Wikimedia Commons, les archives libres de Wikipedia, 1000 tableaux des petits-maîtres suisses. Les petits-maîtres suisses sont des artistes dont la production va du milieu du 18e au milieu du 19e siècle. Avec l’apparition du voyage d’études classique, ils s’étaient mis à illustrer des paysages et des scènes du quotidien typiques au crayon, à l’aquarelle et à l’huile. Ils vendaient les originaux les estampes aux voyageurs. La production des petits-maîtres suisses donne un riche aperçu des paysages et de la culture suisses d’antan. Elle toujours d’actualité, tant pour l’histoire de l’art et des civilisations que pour la recherche ès sciences naturelles. La Bibliothèque nationale suisse possède depuis 1982 une collection de petits-maîtres suisses. Il s’agit d’un don d’Annemarie Gugelmann, qui avait constitué cette collection avec son frère Rudolf. C’est un des cadeaux les plus précieux que la BN ait jamais reçus. C’est également à l’engagement de la famille Gugelmann qu’on doit la création de la fondation Graphica Helvetica grâce à laquelle la collection continue d’être élargie. DE: 1000 «Schweizer Kleinmeister» online Die Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek stellt über 1000 Bilder der «Schweizer Kleinmeister» auf Wikimedia Commons zur freien Verfügung. Es handelt sich umLandschaftsbilder aus dem 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Die Sammlung gibt einen reichhaltigen Einblick in Landschaft und Kultur der Schweiz von damals. Dank der Zusammenarbeit mit Wikimedia Schweiz macht die Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek (NB) laufend gemeinfreie Dokumente aus ihren Sammlungen online zugänglich. Seit neustem sind 1000 Bilder von «Schweizer Kleinmeistern» auf Wikimedia Commons, dem freien Medienarchiv von Wikipedia, hochgeladen. Bei den «Schweizer Kleinmeistern» handelt es sich um Künstler, die von der Mitte des 18. bis in die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts wirkten. Mit dem Aufkommen der klassischen Bildungsreise haben sie damit begonnen, Landschaften und charakteristische Alltagsszenen in Zeichnungen, Aquarellen sowie in Öl festzuhalten. Diese Werke verkauften sie im Original oder als grafische Blätter an Reisende. Das Schaffen der «Schweizer Kleinmeister» gibt einen breit gefächerten Einblick in Landschaft und Kultur der Schweiz von damals. Es ist bis heute für die kulturhistorische, kunstwissenschaftliche und die naturwissenschaftliche Forschung von Interesse. Die Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek ist seit 1982 im Besitz einer Sammlung von «Schweizer Kleinmeistern». Dabei
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation global ban policy
Lfaraone, you're an English Wikipedia arbitrator only as far as I know. What gives you the authority or expertise to make assertions about the legal implications of WMF terms of use violations? Are you a WMF employee? Are you a lawyer? Trillium Corsage 20.01.2015, 04:19, LFaraone wikipe...@luke.wf: MZMcBride z at mzmcbride.com writes: I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible. Users banned by the Wikimedia Foundation who continue to edit in violation of their ban may be placing themselves in possibly legally unfortunate situations, per ToU §12[1]. A Foundation ban would almost certainly be viewed as a stronger demand to desist than bans imposed by the community. Regardless, the WMF is often better-positioned than the community to investigate certain types of issues, and as such it would make sense that they would be the entity to take the aforementioned action. The logic presented above, when taken to its logical conclusion, seems to be why bother banning ANYONE, ever, since they can just sock?. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#12._Termination -- LFaraone ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 17:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: The problem is that WMF already produced a lot of damage, and foremost, damage to their reputation. Russavia at the point he was banned was still a Commons administrator, and he recently survived a desysop discussion. This means he really was trusted by active part of the community (though there was vocal opposition as well). At some point, WMF will need to get volunteer support for some of its actions, and it will be extremely difficult to achieve on Commons. The reality is that its recent actions have made no difference in that respect other than reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior positions on commons by one. Realistically there was no course of action that the WMF people could take that would bring that anti WMF commons people onside. Partly because they are pretty set on their current position and partly because in most cases it is an extension of being anti-english wikipedia and that is frankly even less fixable. -- 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 has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 17:23, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: David Gerard, 20/01/2015 15:38: As I noted, this is a legal stick There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were required by law. That's neither what I said nor meant, but don't let me stop you going off into a world of assumption and speculation. - 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] WMF has lost its path
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 21:11: As I noted, this is a legal stick There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were required by law. That's neither what I said nor meant Sorry if I was unclear: I know you didn't. It's just a distinction worth noting. 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
[Wikimedia-l] Outreach to Afrodescendant community in US
It turns out that something happens when you stop grumbling and start doing things. To be honest, initially I was really surprised that it's working. So, I want to assure you that that works and I would recommend you to try the same. This issue was raised at least two times on this list during the past five years. As participants in our global events, I saw one Black American (Wikimedia Conference 2012, among staff). Counting that there were a couple of hundreds of Americans in London, we should have expected a couple of dozens of Black Americans. Unfortunately, I saw none. If I counted well, they are approximately 5 *times* less represented among WMF staff counting demographics of San Francisco and 10 times less represented counting general US population. But that's the grumbling cliche. So, a couple of months ago I finally started doing something and, surprisingly, something happened. I realized that in 2007 in Zagreb, during the Open Translation Tools event [1] I saw unusually high number of Black Americans for one free software/content event: two. It was actually very high in relative terms, as well. I think that they were something like 40% percents of American participants. So, I approached Alice [2] in October and it turned out that she had been very enthusiastic about the idea which I had represented to her: To reach Black Americans and incorporate them into our global movement. And we started working on that. (Yes, as she is Brooklyn based, we approached WM NYC, but it's quite regular Wikimedia chapter. They are doing great things, sometimes the rest of the world doesn't even realize the size of what they are doing, but they have so WikiPedian relationship to the phenomenon of time: eventually, everything will be fine. In the meantime we'll likely die, but that's fine, to. In relation to this, I have to say that, as a movement, we lost a lot of very good people because that type of relationship to time. In other words: Yes, WM NYC has one outreach program in Harlem, but the dynamics is too slow. And, again, WM NYC outreach to ethnic minorities is much better than in many other places, as it exists.) As I didn't want to spend Alice's enthusiasm on Wikimedia bureaucracy, we started doing things alone. The product is the project [3], which will be started during the first weekend of February in Brooklyn Public Library, during their program Celebrate Black History Month! [4]. I am aware that this is a hot topic in American society, but there are ways to solve hot topics and, surprisingly again, it's not hard at all. I needed just conviction that I am doing the right thing when I went to Zagreb in 2005 and in Pristina in 2009. And we had wars here, ended 10 years ago at that time. There is one important thing to have in mind: We are not doing that to have one more badge on our list of political correctness. We are doing that because we want not just to share our knowledge with the world, but to allow others to share their knowledge with us and the rest of the world. (In relation to what we could get is at least one real gem: Garifuna language [5], a Native American language of Honduras spoken by Garifuna people [6], who are, because of historical events, actually black.) Speaking generally, as Wikimedian and human, this *is* my job. But speaking particularly, this is the job of American Wikimedians. I'd like to see you on February 7th and 8th events in Brooklyn Public Library. Yes, I will teach attendees how to edit Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects via video stream, but, obviously Wikimedians in BPL would be much more useful than me. And, finally, if you are a Black American Wikimedian and reading this email, this is the time for you to come out and empower other Black Americans to become Wikimedians. [1] https://aspirationtech.org/events/opentranslation [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aliceba [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/AFROcroWd_and_Interglider.ORG/Outreach_to_Afrodescendant_community_in_US [4] http://www.bklynlibrary.org/events/celebrate-black-history-month [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garifuna_language [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garifuna_people ___ 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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt
(sort of) related to this old thread... the DOI resolver site went down today because they apparently forgot to renew the domain, and the author of this blog post from CrossRef (who runs it) suggests relying on *us* for persistent identifier stability: http://crosstech.crossref.org/2015/01/problems-with-dx-doi-org-on-january-20th-2015-what-we-know.html He notes the “persistence” [of persistent identifiers] is the result of a social contract -- indeed. best, Phoebe On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: My experience is that to create a DOI you need to provide a basic level of metadata for each item rather than simply registering a target URL - I'm not sure how curated this needs to be, and it can probably be autogenerated, but there might be problems scaling it and doing it on demand. There is also a short delay before they become active at the central registry. (I've certainly seen cases where a publisher has issued a DOI then announced it to the world before CrossRef are able to resolve it, and it takes a day or two before the DOI works...) As a result, I don't think we could generate these on the fly and use a URL-shortener type approach - there might be problems with generating that many of them, and they would not reliably work at the moment they're generated. Andrew. On 30 December 2014 at 21:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: Digital object identifiers are an international standard for document identification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier The WMF could be a DOI registrant, and resolve DOIs in the form 10..Qn for Wikidata items, or, say, 10..en:609232908 for: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_King_of_Romeoldid=609232908 Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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 -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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 -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ 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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt
phoebe ayers, 20/01/2015 23:42: suggests relying on*us* for persistent identifier stability: Hmm I'm not sure that's what it's written there. However, relatedly, also today: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/26/cobweb «The footnote, a landmark in the history of civilization, took centuries to invent and to spread. It has taken mere years nearly to destroy. [...] The footnote problem, though, stands a good chance of being fixed. Last year, a tool called Perma.cc was launched.» I looked into perma.cc some time ago but I had never read such an emphatic supporter yet. (Their stats also seem rather flat lately.) The two articles combined make me wonder: if I cite a Wikimedia projects page in a long-term document, should I link something like perma.cc or to the oldid? I prefer the oldid, because I think it's every website's responsibility to offer really permanent links. But if such a permalink/archival service was offered by a national library with the guarantees of legal deposit... then I wouldn't be sure. 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] Announcement regarding Host for Wikimania 2016
Auguri! Will be a peculiar but a successful Wikimania! 2015-01-21 0:32 GMT-06:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr: Congratulations to all people involved in this choice and, on behalf of Wikimédia France, special big congratulations to Wikimedia IT and Wikimedia CH who led it all \o/ !! -- Emeric Vallespi Vice President Wikimédia France www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr Twitter: @evallespi On 21 Jan 2015, at 00:24, Ellie Young eyo...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Wikimedians, On the recommendation of the Wikimania 2016 selection Jury Committee, we have accepted the proposal from the Esino Lario Italy team. The Wikimania Esino Lario team is composed mainly of volunteers. It is promoted by Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia CH in partnership with Esino Lario city council, Ecomuseo delle Grigne, Pro Loco Esino Lario, Parco Regionale della Grigna Settentionale and the Esino Lario local associations and community. nThe proposal will be further vetted by the WMF staff in the coming months, after which time we hope to confirm the award. Please join us in congratulating Wikimania Esino Lario! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario We would also like to thank the team from Manila, Philippines for their efforts in putting together excellent proposal. As a volunteer-led movement, it is hugely encouraging to have so many who want to support Wikimania. The bidding process requires a substantial time investment, and we are most grateful for every team’s hard work. For those of you who are considering hosting in future years, we expect to issue the Request for Proposals for 2017 in September. Sincerely, Ellie Young, WMF Conference Coordinator On behalf of the Wikimania Steering 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, 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 -- *Iván Martínez* *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org http://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org* Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: 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] Announcement regarding Host for Wikimania 2016
Congratulations to all people involved in this choice and, on behalf of Wikimédia France, special big congratulations to Wikimedia IT and Wikimedia CH who led it all \o/ !! -- Emeric Vallespi Vice President Wikimédia France www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr Twitter: @evallespi On 21 Jan 2015, at 00:24, Ellie Young eyo...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Wikimedians, On the recommendation of the Wikimania 2016 selection Jury Committee, we have accepted the proposal from the Esino Lario Italy team. The Wikimania Esino Lario team is composed mainly of volunteers. It is promoted by Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia CH in partnership with Esino Lario city council, Ecomuseo delle Grigne, Pro Loco Esino Lario, Parco Regionale della Grigna Settentionale and the Esino Lario local associations and community. nThe proposal will be further vetted by the WMF staff in the coming months, after which time we hope to confirm the award. Please join us in congratulating Wikimania Esino Lario! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario We would also like to thank the team from Manila, Philippines for their efforts in putting together excellent proposal. As a volunteer-led movement, it is hugely encouraging to have so many who want to support Wikimania. The bidding process requires a substantial time investment, and we are most grateful for every team’s hard work. For those of you who are considering hosting in future years, we expect to issue the Request for Proposals for 2017 in September. Sincerely, Ellie Young, WMF Conference Coordinator On behalf of the Wikimania Steering 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, 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] [Wikimania-l] Announcement regarding Host for Wikimania 2016
Kudos to the team and to the jury for daring to try something totally new exciting for Wikimania 2016 that sounds just a little bit crazy. :D I am hugely looking forward to being part of this -- and I think everyone who signs up to come will do so in the spirit of exploration adventure in which this bid is undertaken. I've been to many conferences, offsites, retreats and what have you. The ones that stick most in my mind are the ones that combined an interesting environment, challenges to overcome, and lots of rich, intimate conversations, woven together into an unforgettable experience. It sounds like Wikimania 2016 will have plenty of all of the above. :) Erik ___ 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 has lost its path
I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent. If the owner of the website banned Russavia from editing it, Russavia must have violated the rules. Or does anyone really suspect WMF of banning people for fun? I don't and I hope nobody else does, either. m2c, Th. 2015-01-20 19:49 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be no you compromised my privacy complaint basis for the individual. It is my understanding that the banned users are informed of the reasons (and possibly also warned prior to ban, but of course this should not always be the case - I can imagine scenarios in which immediate action is needed). best, dariusz pundit -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge ___ 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] WMF has lost its path
On 2015-01-20 20:12, Chris Keating wrote: My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF people in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more damage for themselves than they hoped to create good. I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue. ___ This is the framework suggested by geni, not by me. Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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 has lost its path
On 2015-01-20 20:20, Thomas Goldammer wrote: I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent. If the owner of the website banned Russavia from editing it, Russavia must have violated the rules. Or does anyone really suspect WMF of banning people for fun? I don't and I hope nobody else does, either. m2c, Th. He claims he got only a standard notice that he was banned for TOU violation. Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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 has lost its path
On 2015-01-20 19:10, geni wrote: The reality is that its recent actions have made no difference in that respect other than reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior positions on commons by one. Realistically there was no course of action that the WMF people could take that would bring that anti WMF commons people onside. Partly because they are pretty set on their current position and partly because in most cases it is an extension of being anti-english wikipedia and that is frankly even less fixable. My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF people in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more damage for themselves than they hoped to create good. Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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 has lost its path
My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF people in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more damage for themselves than they hoped to create good. I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue. ___ 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 has lost its path
20.01.2015, 18:06, geni email clipped: However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the relevant logs and archives. Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate specific refutation next time. The answer dig through the logs and archives will find no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from many rabid and shifty accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why the WMF acted. Do some homework and figure it out yourself is no answer for an 100 million dollar organization with scores of employees to say. Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a CC network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which one do you think it is going to do? You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise the editor of all that privately, say publicly because of privacy or legal implications, we won't be specific, but we advised the individual privately, and that would be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. Trillium Corsage ___ 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 has lost its path
My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF people in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more damage for themselves than they hoped to create good. I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue. ___ This is the framework suggested by geni, not by me. Ah - I see it was - thanks. It is however a view that I've seen expressed in other discussions on this topic, so it's probably still a point worth making. Personally I think this step will be quite good for the health of the community on Commons. 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
