Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting system (was: Results of 2015 WMF Board elections)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On the other side, I would note that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that one of the most important reasons are negative votes, exactly. You can't do good job if you want to be reelected. Newyorkbrad managed to serve for _eight years_, and most people seem to think he did a good job. It is true that most arbitrators don't serve for very long,[0] but this is mainly because they either resign or choose not to run again. The standard reasons are it's too stressful or I'm too busy. From what I remember, the usual panic around election time is that there won't be enough candidates (of course, there always are). There were elections for CheckUser and Oversight for a couple years, but ArbCom went back to just appointing people after there was an election in which only one person passed the vote threshold. CU/OS is more comparable to stewardship than to ArbCom, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/History#Former_members ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Voting system (was: Results of 2015 WMF Board elections)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: # We use S/N/O for many other kinds of votes, including FDC, steward, Arbitration Committee, and featured content votes. I have not heard disagreement with it until now, which suggests that generally there is consensus for this system. ... # One of the best features of S/N/O is that it works to favor candidates who have consensus for them, i.e. have both a good quantity of supporters and have few people who oppose their election. If someone has many support votes and many oppose votes, this suggests that the person is relatively controversial, which probably makes them a less optimal choice for roles like FDC, Steward, Arbitration Committee, and WMF Board roles. From my perspective, and I don't think it's unique, those elections are quite different: * FDC: Realistically, just people from chapters and thematic organizations are interested in this. And if I am a Board member of a chapter, my rational approach would be to approach other chapters and make a deal with them who should be elected. Basically, that population decides anyway. Besides the fact that a lot of us don't feel comfortable to make political decision for expert seats, while we don't have precise clue what we should require from the candidates. It's not the duty of *every* member of the community to be an expert in hiring grantmaking staff. * English Wikipedia ArbCom: At some point of time I was very active on en.wp, but I was never interested in en.wp governance (not even to become an admin). I think that the majority of non-native English speakers have such approach to en.wp. On the other side, I would note that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that one of the most important reasons are negative votes, exactly. You can't do good job if you want to be reelected. * Stewards are the third category and this system is actually perfect for their elections: both public and requiring 80% of support. Stewards are not going to reelections. Other stewards review their work, while openness of the group is guarantied by constant elections. * Negative votes tend to make the whole atmosphere much more tense, stressful for both the community and Board members. Besides the reasons I (and others) have given into the previous emails. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Community Assembly
I suppose that nobody commented my idea about the Assembly because of two main reasons: it's a different paradigm, as well as it doesn't seem realistic. The cure for different paradigm acceptance is repeating it until it becomes familiar :P But, of course, much more important reason is the fact that it doesn't look realistic. So, here is one realistic plan. And, before the plan, here are the main reasons behind this idea (add your own :) ): * We have a need to separate political will from expertise. Present Board structure is coping with that fact. In the case we have Assembly, it would be the political body, while the Board would become expert body. * We want larger democratic participation during the elections for Board and FDC. Three community and two chapters places make too small space for everybody to be content. As we could see, this elections didn't bring any woman, any Latin American or Asian, not even one American, as well. (If we count Canada as East European colony, all three elected candidates are East European :P ) In other words, it is hard to implement any kind of diversity inside of ten members body. * Besides implementing diversity because it's good to have diverse points of view, which is good idea not just for any global organization, but for any multinational company, we strongly depend on feeling of all Wikimedians that they are properly represented. And, again, ten members body doesn't give that opportunity well. * We have significant number of core Wikimedians who are not members of any governing body (Board, committees, stewards, even admins...) and they feel powerless. While they don't have particular chance to become Board members and similar, as it's about small number of elected representatives, they would have significantly more chance to become Assembly members, get some influence and stop feeling isolated. * Our democracy and representations should evolve. The previous opportunity was Chapters Association, but we didn't succeed. It's time to try again. FDC has addressed the basic objections, but it's a dead end in the sense of democracy development. There could be more arguments in favor and you could add them. I want now to present realistic plan, which would address the most important objection I could see: making WMF governing unpredictable. I would also say that the path which I suggest doesn't cost anything and it would be reversible at any moment of time during the next five or more years if we conclude that the Assembly is not that good idea. You should keep in mind that It's also the initial approximation. The roadmap: * June 2015-December 2016: Preparations for CA creation. If we want to start doing this, we should prepare at least a couple of documents for the Founding Assembly, so initial members don't need to spend months in defining them. The idea should be presented to as many as possible communities. Election committee should prepare the election rules etc. I think we'll need for that more than a year. * December 2016: Elections. * March/April 2017: Founding Assembly during the Wikimedia Conference. I would leave to the representatives just to constitute Assembly on this occasion. * July/August 2017: The first regular Assembly. On that occasion Assembly should take a couple of committees under itself. I have in mind LangCom, AffCom and GAC. In reality, the first two committees are not accountable to anyone and that should be changed. We shouldn't build numerous of oligarchies de facto accountable just to themselves. And it doesn't matter if they are doing a good job (like AffCom is doing now) or they are doing almost nothing (LangCom case). On the other side, GAC under CA would be the first test of CA's ability to manage a body which manages money. Board and staff could oversee CA's managing and leaving GAC to CA gradually, till full control. For example, it would be a good test for CA to immediately give GAC control over small grants and see if CA is capable to oversee GAC efficiently. * December 2017: Elections for 1/4 of seats. The number of seats should be ~50, though it's negotiable. I think that with this number we could achieve the goals of wider representation, while using anything much larger could make CA too costly and likely too inefficient, counting that the members are not paid. I don't think that it's a good idea to change all the representatives at once and 1/4 seems to me as a number which doesn't make changes too drastic. * March/April 2018: Assembly during WMCON. At that time, besides ongoing issues, CA should start writing the report for the Board and community: What did it do for one year of existence? * July/August 2018: Assembly adopts the report and presents it to the Board and community. * August 2018-October 2018: Board and community analyze the report and CA's work. If everything is fine, CA should continue with it's work. Otherwise, Board could call for referendum on existence of CA (preferably) or disband it
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting system (was: Results of 2015 WMF Board elections)
Regarding contents / geographic vs. cultural areas: I think either would make sense. One way of looking at cultural areas would be the ways that the affiliates spontaneously organized ourselves at WMCON, possibly with a few additions. Regarding differing population sizes: yes, but there will be imperfections no matter how we arrange a system. Regardless, we can design a system that is better than the one we have now, and I hear no one in this thread saying that the current board structure should be maintained. Regarding negative votes: # We use S/N/O for many other kinds of votes, including FDC, steward, Arbitration Committee, and featured content votes. I have not heard disagreement with it until now, which suggests that generally there is consensus for this system. # If the system was confusing, I would have expected people to ask questions on the vote talk page for FDC and Board elections. While there were other questions on the vote talk page, no one asked about the S/N/O system. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015 # One of the best features of S/N/O is that it works to favor candidates who have consensus for them, i.e. have both a good quantity of supporters and have few people who oppose their election. If someone has many support votes and many oppose votes, this suggests that the person is relatively controversial, which probably makes them a less optimal choice for roles like FDC, Steward, Arbitration Committee, and WMF Board roles. I'm open to hearing of better systems than S/N/O, but at this point I continue to support S/N/O, and judging by how many kinds of votes we have in the Wikimedia community with the S/N/O system, it appears that there is general consensus for this model. 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] Community Assembly
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: I do not think community assembly as a replacement for the Board would work. A body of 10 people and a body of say 50 people are different bodies and they should have different functions. I didn't say that CA should replace the Board. I said that at the end, it should be *above* the Board, while Board would be comparable to the Government of parliamentary democracies. Also, for the period first 6-7 years of its existence, CA would be de facto advisory body. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting system (was: Results of 2015 WMF Board elections)
On Jun 7, 2015 9:31 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: # We use S/N/O for many other kinds of votes, including FDC, steward, Arbitration Committee, and featured content votes. I have not heard disagreement with it until now, which suggests that generally there is consensus for this system. ... # One of the best features of S/N/O is that it works to favor candidates who have consensus for them, i.e. have both a good quantity of supporters and have few people who oppose their election. If someone has many support votes and many oppose votes, this suggests that the person is relatively controversial, which probably makes them a less optimal choice for roles like FDC, Steward, Arbitration Committee, and WMF Board roles. From my perspective, and I don't think it's unique, those elections are quite different: * FDC: Realistically, just people from chapters and thematic organizations are interested in this. And if I am a Board member of a chapter, my rational approach would be to approach other chapters and make a deal with them who should be elected. Basically, that population decides anyway. Besides the fact that a lot of us don't feel comfortable to make political decision for expert seats, while we don't have precise clue what we should require from the candidates. It's not the duty of *every* member of the community to be an expert in hiring grantmaking staff. * English Wikipedia ArbCom: At some point of time I was very active on en.wp, but I was never interested in en.wp governance (not even to become an admin). I think that the majority of non-native English speakers have such approach to en.wp. On the other side, I would note that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that one of the most important reasons are negative votes, exactly. You can't do good job if you want to be reelected. * Stewards are the third category and this system is actually perfect for their elections: both public and requiring 80% of support. Stewards are not going to reelections. Other stewards review their work, while openness of the group is guarantied by constant elections. * Negative votes tend to make the whole atmosphere much more tense, stressful for both the community and Board members. Besides the reasons I (and others) have given into the previous emails. Just to put into perspective what risker said about neutral votes: it is technical because one needs to click something. There is no way to remove a radio button, and neutral was the default. I find therefore the naming confusing or the user interface. But for the results I am happy. I fully agree with others already noting that controversial candidates are and imo should not be favoured. There must be a reason Maria last time was elected and got an impressive number of counter votes this time. It might be that denny really did awesome stuff in the last years and one did not hear a lot from Maria the last years. For phoebe it might have been a diversity vote, as there are already a lot of persons from the US in the board. Diversity can imo best reached when more candidates can be elected. I think this would also work with experience in needed areas, not only continents, language groups or gender. If we have quotas or whatever to get diversity we approach a FIFA system. Which would maybe work if we have organisations and elections for the diverse groups. Rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Assembly
On 2015-06-07 20:43, Milos Rancic wrote: I suppose that nobody commented my idea about the Assembly because of two main reasons: it's a different paradigm, as well as it doesn't seem realistic. Hi Milos, I do not think community assembly as a replacement for the Board would work. A body of 10 people and a body of say 50 people are different bodies and they should have different functions. I do not think imposing a lot of constraints for the board election would work either. In the end of the day, what we got is the opinion of the majority of the voters. Most of our voters are white males, and this is a fact. We should not really be surprised that we get three white males elected. If Denny, James and Dariusz were barred from running by constraints, I guess many would just not turn up. I personally voted for two of them, and I would be pretty much disappointed if some external constraints would prevent them from running. I think we have to live with this. However, someone (I think it was SJ but I might be wrong) came up with an idea of an advisory body, which would not be the Board but would have members with different backgrounds, elected / partially elected / apointed (to be discussed) which would be able to give a quick advice to the Board on certain initiatives without creating cross-project drama. I guess this is smth which can develop from your ideas in the community assembly. 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] Voting system (was: Results of 2015 WMF Board elections)
I agree that negative votes have possibly too much weight in the current system. But there is one other problem with what we have: people from some cultures may be much more reluctant to cast tactical negative votes. If this is so, because of cultural differences we privilege cultures more flex about expressing dissent. James Alexander has promised to look into raw data, as this effect would be observable. If it shows up, it is yet another argument to drop the current voting method. best, dj On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:48 PM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote: [For the record I'm running the vote dumps now that should allow some of that analysis to be done by those interested. No exact promises on timing because while I'll send it out today it will take some time to approve for anonymization etc.] James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the funny thing with current system is that if people had voted in most rational way - i.e. to maximize the impact of their votes - the results would have been negative for all candidates - as this year none of them got more than 50% of positive votes. But in fact if all people would vote in that way - negative votes would be negligible - as the result will be simple exactly the same as if there will be no no votes - in both methods of calculation :-) What makes negative votes so important is just because people are not voting in rational way as they have some mental objections to vote no. But those brave ones (or smart ones or bad ones) enough to vote no have much higher impact on the results than the others - which I think is not good by itslef. By the way would interesting to know how many voters voted only yes and no, and how many voted yes for only one candidate and no for all others (the most impact for selected candidate). Based on the numbers, it's likely that the voting was dominantly like: I want this candidate or two; I have no opinion about these candidates; and I really really wouldn't like to see this one or two as Board members. I'd say that our democracy depends on such behavior of voters, as at the end we are getting good people in the Board, no matter who has been elected particularly. However, it could change and it could have dramatic consequences, as we are operating with small numbers. What's more likely to be seen as the outcome of rational voting is to get one or few candidates with 50% less opposing votes and although it wouldn't need to be bad in the sense of particular candidates, it would make very negative consequences to the rest of the community. First time such thing happens, next time we'd have bitter fight for every vote. And that would be the changing point: from friendly to competitive atmosphere. It would also mean that we'd get serious hidden lobby groups. (We have them now, but it's relaxed and much more about it would be great if our candidate would pass, than about serious fights for own candidates.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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 -- __ 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,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's cool?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:41 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: I need a break from thinking about things going wrong. And so per Milos' observation that discussion here is falling off, I thought I'd start an open discussion thread about things going right. What's a cool thing you just discovered or are involved in that is happening in the Wikimedia world? Six months ago, the average time it took to save a page was 6.1 seconds. It's now 1.4 seconds. The performance team is in the process figuring out our goals for the next quarter and we think we can get to sub-second page saves by September. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Wikipedia article per speaker
When you get data, at some point of time you start thinking about quite fringe comparisons. But that could actually give some useful conclusions, like this time it did [1]. We did the next: * Used the number of primary speakers from Ethnologue. (Erik Zachte is using approximate number of primary + secondary speakers; that could be good for correction of this data.) * Categorized languages according to the logarithmic number of speakers: =10k, =100k, =1M, =10M, =100M. * Took the number of articles of Wikipedia in particular language and created ration (number of articles / number of speakers). * This list is consisted just of languages with Ethnologue status 1 (national), 2 (provincial) or 3 (wider communication). In fact, we have a lot of projects (more than 100) with worse language status; a number of them are actually threatened or even on the edge of extinction. Those are the preliminary results and I will definitely have to pass through all the numbers. I fixed manually some serious errors, like not having English Wikipedia itself inside of data :D Putting the languages into the logarithmic categories proved to be useful, as we are now able to compare the Wikipedias according to their gross capacity (numbers of speakers). I suppose somebody well introduced into statistics could even create the function which could be used to check how good one project stays, no matter of those strict categories. It's obvious that as more speakers one language has, it's harder to the community to follow the ratio. So, the winners per category are: 1) = 1k: Hawaiian, ratio 0.96900 2) = 10k: Mirandese, ratio 0.18073 3) = 100k: Basque, ratio 0.38061 4) = 1M: Swedish, ratio 0.21381 5) = 10M: Dutch, ratio 0.08305 6) = 100M: English, ratio 0.01447 However, keep in mind that we removed languages not inside categories 1, 2 or 3. That affected =10k languages, as, for example, Upper Sorbian stays much better than Mirandese (0.67). (Will fix it while creating the full report. Obviously, in this case logarithmic categories of numbers of speakers are much more important than what's the state of the language.) It's obvious that we could draw the line between 1:1 for 1-10k speakers to 10:1 for =100M speakers. But, again, I would like to get input of somebody more competent. One very important category is missing here and it's about the level of development of the speakers. That could be added: GDP/PPP per capita for spoken country or countries would be useful as measurement. And I suppose somebody with statistical knowledge would be able to give us the number which would have meaning ability to create Wikipedia article. Completed in such way, we'd be able to measure the success of particular Wikimedia groups and organizations. OK. Articles per speaker are not the only way to do so, but we could use other parameters, as well: number of new/active/very active editors etc. And we could put it into time scale. I'll make some other results. And to remind: I'd like to have the formula to count ability to create Wikipedia article and then to produce level of particular community success in creating Wikipedia articles. And, of course, to implement it for editors. [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TYyhETevEJ5MhfRheRn-aGc4cs_6k45Gwk_ic14TXY4/edit?usp=sharing ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] [Wikipedia-BN] 10th year founding anniversary of Bengali Wikipedia
Hi Hasive, On behalf of Wikimedia community from India, my best wishes for the Bangladesh Wikimedia community. We look forward to more interaction between both the communities in the coming months. Thanks, Ravi On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Hasive Chowdhury nhas...@wikimedia.org.bd wrote: Hi All, We're happy to share another good news from Bengali Wikipedia Community. You already know that Bengali Wikipedia has reached It's 10 year journey. We celebrate a program on last February 10 and Jimmy Wales joined with us as Chief Guest. After that recently (May 30) we again successfully complete 'Bengali Wikipedia 10th year Founding Anniversary Conference' by Wikimedia Bangladesh. We are happy to run this anniversary program around the country. We conduct several series Wikipedia workshop/seminar seven division in our country. After that we arrange day long program in Dhaka. 300+ registered Wikipedian from different part of country attend this conference. Few Wikipedians from Kolkata (India) also join with us to celebrate Bengali Wikipedia 10th year anniversary. In our final event we arrange day long event including Workshop, Seminar, Special workshop for women, discussion about outreach program, coloration discussion with Wikipedian from Kolkata etc. Our conference inaugurated by honorable state minister of ICT Division of Govt. Republic of Bangladesh Mr. Zunaid Ahmed Palak [1]. We give 10 best Wikipedian award and best three photographer who attend our Wikimedia Commons photo contest. All award handover by popular award winner writer and journalist Anisul Hoque [2]. All program photo available this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:10th_Anniversary_of_Bengali_Wikipedia,_Bangladesh Cheers! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunaid_Ahmed_Palak [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisul_Hoque Hasive -- *Hasive **Chowdhury** :: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী **হাছিব* Global User: Hasive http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hasive Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Hasive Member | GAC Committee, Wikimedia Foundation http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People Director | Wikimedia Bangladesh Operations Committee http://www.wikimedia.org.bd fb.com/Hasive http://fb.com/itsNCH | @nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com ___ Wikipedia-BN mailing list wikipedia...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-bn ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Wikimania Discussion Room: we need your ideas!
(Spanish below) Dear all, Wikimania is not only about presentations - but also about meeting your colleagues from around the world, and having encouraging, inspiring and impactful discussions. To this end, we will organise again the 'Discussion Room' at Wikimania, a structured track of round table discussion sessions with moderation: no speakers, everybody can participate in the discussion. And the topics focus on community topics! These discussions can only be successful if you, the editor, the administrator, the Wikimedian feel that the discussions are actually relevant to you, and that you can contribute to it. That is why we would like to hear from you (and especially if you plan to attend Wikimania) what kind of community topics you would like to discuss with your colleagues. As example, some topics of last year were: * Welcoming and retaining new users * Wikimedia Commons - needs and wishes for the perfect Wikimedia media database * Exchange of deletion/review processes and best practices * Mass article creation - who should write Wikipedia? Those were topics very relevant in 2014, but maybe you feel that in your community, different topics are hot: please let us know! We will still adapt the topics of discussion to those most relevant and most promising. Please suggest your topics here: https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Room#Suggested_topics_for_2015 On that page, you can also leave your name as interested for the sessions. We are planning to decide on the topics in the coming weeks, so please let us know as soon as possible! Best regards, Lodewijk Gelauff, Iolanda Pensa and Galio Vidoni organising committee of the Discussion Room Estimados: Wikimanía no se trata sólo de presentaciones: también de encontrarte con colegas de distintas partes del mundo, y de tener conversaciones que motiven, inspiren e impacten. Para eso es que organizaremos nuevamente el Salón de Debate [*Discussion Room*] de Wikimanía, una serie de debates horizontales moderados: no hay expositores y todos pueden participar. ¡Y los temas se centran en cuestiones de la comunidad! Estos debates sólo pueden tener éxito si tu, el editor, el administrador, el Wikimedista, sientes que los temas te son verdaderamente relevantes y que tienes algo para aportar. Por eso es que quisiéramos que nos cuentes (especialmente si planeas asistir a Wikimanía) qué clase de temas quisieras que formaran parte del debate entre colegas. Por ejemplo, algunos de los temas del año pasado fueron los siguientes: * Recepción y retención de nuevos usuarios * Wikimedia Commons: necesidades y deseos para un repositorio multimedia perfecto * Intercambio sobre procesos de borrado/revisión y casos exitosos * Creación masiva de artículos: ¿quién debería escribir Wikipedia? Estos temas fueron muy relevantes en 2014, pero puede que sientas que los temas candentes en tu comunidad son otros: ¡háznoslos saber! Adaptaremos los temas de debate a aquellos más relevantes y prometedores. Por favor, propón temas aquí: https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Room#Suggested_topics_for_2015 También puedes dejar tu nombre en esa página para indicar que tienes interés en la propuesta. Pensamos decidir sobre los temas en las próximas semanas, ¡así que mientras antes nos digas, mejor! En principio los debates se realizarán en inglés, pero añadiremos sesiones en castellano si existe interés de la comunidad. Antentamente Lodewijk Gelauff, Iolanda Pensa y Galio Vidoni Comité Organizador del *Discussion Room* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] [Wikipedia-BN] 10th year founding anniversary of Bengali Wikipedia
Thank you Ravi for bumping this thread so that I saw it and thank you Hasive for the letting us know about the recent events! The pictures make it clear that you they were not only successful events but a lot of fun and that's exactly what you should have for such a momentous occasion. I joke sometimes that work on the projects, in the WMF and in the movement as a whole can feel like dog years where you become an old experienced had after only a couple quick years (and are seen as such because there are so many new faces around). 10 years can feel very short in some ways but there is so much work that has been done during those 10 years that it really is a marathon. Here's to 10, 20, 100+ more years :) Congrats! James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Ravishankar Ayyakkannu ravidre...@wikimedia.in wrote: Hi Hasive, On behalf of Wikimedia community from India, my best wishes for the Bangladesh Wikimedia community. We look forward to more interaction between both the communities in the coming months. Thanks, Ravi On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Hasive Chowdhury nhas...@wikimedia.org.bd wrote: Hi All, We're happy to share another good news from Bengali Wikipedia Community. You already know that Bengali Wikipedia has reached It's 10 year journey. We celebrate a program on last February 10 and Jimmy Wales joined with us as Chief Guest. After that recently (May 30) we again successfully complete 'Bengali Wikipedia 10th year Founding Anniversary Conference' by Wikimedia Bangladesh. We are happy to run this anniversary program around the country. We conduct several series Wikipedia workshop/seminar seven division in our country. After that we arrange day long program in Dhaka. 300+ registered Wikipedian from different part of country attend this conference. Few Wikipedians from Kolkata (India) also join with us to celebrate Bengali Wikipedia 10th year anniversary. In our final event we arrange day long event including Workshop, Seminar, Special workshop for women, discussion about outreach program, coloration discussion with Wikipedian from Kolkata etc. Our conference inaugurated by honorable state minister of ICT Division of Govt. Republic of Bangladesh Mr. Zunaid Ahmed Palak [1]. We give 10 best Wikipedian award and best three photographer who attend our Wikimedia Commons photo contest. All award handover by popular award winner writer and journalist Anisul Hoque [2]. All program photo available this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:10th_Anniversary_of_Bengali_Wikipedia,_Bangladesh Cheers! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunaid_Ahmed_Palak [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisul_Hoque Hasive -- *Hasive **Chowdhury** :: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী **হাছিব* Global User: Hasive http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hasive Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Hasive Member | GAC Committee, Wikimedia Foundation http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People Director | Wikimedia Bangladesh Operations Committee http://www.wikimedia.org.bd fb.com/Hasive http://fb.com/itsNCH | @nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com ___ Wikipedia-BN mailing list wikipedia...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-bn ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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
