Re: [Wikimedia-l] Revision scoring as a service launched

[Anna Stillwell]

Wo h.


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> It's mentioned in the MIT Review here:
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> > This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
> > dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
> > >
> > > Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
> > > official launch of revision scoring as a service <
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service
> >
> > > and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
> > >
> > > Blog post:
> > >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > > >
> > > Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
> > >
> > > First off: what’s revision scoring <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale
> > >?
> > > On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to automatically
> > > “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
> > > good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though, is
> > to
> > > fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools on
> > > good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension to
> > how
> > > we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole blog
> > > post <
> > >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > >
> > > if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome of
> > this
> > > project.
> > >
> > > I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
> > > congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the
> project
> > > contributors <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
> > >
> > > on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s side
> > > project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in –
> > literally
> > > – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
> > > distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers. We
> > > worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions and
> as
> > > of today revision scores are integrated <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES
> > >
> > > in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects and
> > 3rd
> > > party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
> > > technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular) and
> > > seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia Germany.
> > >
> > > So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON
> > TREES
> > >  you
> can
> > > confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
> > > http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/> Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Dario
> > >
> > >
> > > Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > > wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org
> <
> > > http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Revision scoring as a service launched

[Mardetanha]

it has been on fawiki for couple of month now and it does amazing Job.
Thanks for making this

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:27 PM Jane Darnell  wrote:

> It's mentioned in the MIT Review here:
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> > This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
> > dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
> > >
> > > Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
> > > official launch of revision scoring as a service <
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service
> >
> > > and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
> > >
> > > Blog post:
> > >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > > >
> > > Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
> > >
> > > First off: what’s revision scoring <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale
> > >?
> > > On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to automatically
> > > “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
> > > good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though, is
> > to
> > > fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools on
> > > good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension to
> > how
> > > we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole blog
> > > post <
> > >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > >
> > > if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome of
> > this
> > > project.
> > >
> > > I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
> > > congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the
> project
> > > contributors <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
> > >
> > > on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s side
> > > project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in –
> > literally
> > > – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
> > > distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers. We
> > > worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions and
> as
> > > of today revision scores are integrated <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES
> > >
> > > in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects and
> > 3rd
> > > party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
> > > technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular) and
> > > seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia Germany.
> > >
> > > So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON
> > TREES
> > >  you
> can
> > > confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
> > > http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/> Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Dario
> > >
> > >
> > > Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > > wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org
> <
> > > http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Revision scoring as a service launched

[Anna Stillwell]

Hold on, is this fact correct?

"One motivation for the project is a significant decline in the number of
people considered active contributors to the flagship English-language
Wikipedia: it has fallen by 40 percent over the past eight years, to about
30,000."

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Wo h.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> It's mentioned in the MIT Review here:
>>
>> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
>> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
>> > dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
>> > >
>> > > Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
>> > > official launch of revision scoring as a service <
>> > >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service>
>> > > and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
>> > >
>> > > Blog post:
>> > >
>> >
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
>> > > >
>> > > Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
>> > >
>> > > First off: what’s revision scoring <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale
>> > >?
>> > > On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to automatically
>> > > “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
>> > > good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though,
>> is
>> > to
>> > > fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools on
>> > > good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension to
>> > how
>> > > we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole
>> blog
>> > > post <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
>> > >
>> > > if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome of
>> > this
>> > > project.
>> > >
>> > > I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
>> > > congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
>> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the
>> project
>> > > contributors <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
>> > >
>> > > on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s
>> side
>> > > project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in –
>> > literally
>> > > – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
>> > > distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers. We
>> > > worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions
>> and as
>> > > of today revision scores are integrated <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES
>> > >
>> > > in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects
>> and
>> > 3rd
>> > > party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
>> > > technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular)
>> and
>> > > seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia Germany.
>> > >
>> > > So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON
>> > TREES
>> > >  you
>> can
>> > > confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
>> > > http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/> Wikipedia.
>> > >
>> > > Dario
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
>> > > wikimediafoundation.org  •
>> nitens.org <
>> > > http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
>> > > ___
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > <
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>> > > 
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Revision scoring as a service launched

[Pine W]

Roughly, yes. March 2007: 50,996 "active" editors. October 2015: 30,482
"active" editors.

Pine

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hold on, is this fact correct?
>
> "One motivation for the project is a significant decline in the number of
> people considered active contributors to the flagship English-language
> Wikipedia: it has fallen by 40 percent over the past eight years, to about
> 30,000."
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Wo h.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> >
> >> It's mentioned in the MIT Review here:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Steven Walling <
> steven.wall...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
> >> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
> >> > dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
> >> > >
> >> > > Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
> >> > > official launch of revision scoring as a service <
> >> > >
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service>
> >> > > and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
> >> > >
> >> > > Blog post:
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> >> > > <
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> >> > > >
> >> > > Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
> >> > >
> >> > > First off: what’s revision scoring <
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale
> >> > >?
> >> > > On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to
> automatically
> >> > > “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
> >> > > good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though,
> >> is
> >> > to
> >> > > fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools
> on
> >> > > good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension
> to
> >> > how
> >> > > we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole
> >> blog
> >> > > post <
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> >> > >
> >> > > if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome
> of
> >> > this
> >> > > project.
> >> > >
> >> > > I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
> >> > > congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
> >> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the
> >> project
> >> > > contributors <
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
> >> > >
> >> > > on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s
> >> side
> >> > > project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in –
> >> > literally
> >> > > – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
> >> > > distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers.
> We
> >> > > worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions
> >> and as
> >> > > of today revision scores are integrated <
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES
> >> > >
> >> > > in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects
> >> and
> >> > 3rd
> >> > > party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
> >> > > technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular)
> >> and
> >> > > seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia
> Germany.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON
> >> > TREES
> >> > > 
> you
> >> can
> >> > > confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
> >> > > http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/>
> Wikipedia.
> >> > >
> >> > > Dario
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> >> > > wikimediafoundation.org  •
> >> nitens.org <
> >> > > http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
> >> > > ___
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > <
> >> >
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > >
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

[Risker]

Heh.  $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on
an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants
that are separate from direct fundraising.  It *might* last 5-7 years of
bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no
software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own
desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to
chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for
free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major
changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep
up-to-date with this.

This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to
include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating
functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to
proceed.

Risker/Anne

On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha  wrote:

> do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any
> fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the
> position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep
> running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all-
> > >
> > > For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions
> > >  about whether and when to
> > begin
> > > building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt
> > to
> > > rekindle this conversation with the community.  We included launching
> an
> > > endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
> >
> > Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving
> > forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber 
> > wrote:
> > > Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is
> > > probably worthwhile.
> >
> > I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
> >
> > The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an
> > investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think
> > directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual
> > funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate,
> > much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and
> > levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might
> > not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other
> > large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
> >
> > best,
> > Phoebe
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

[Mardetanha]

do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any
fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the
position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep
running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?

Mardetanha

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> wrote:
> > Hi all-
> >
> > For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions
> >  about whether and when to
> begin
> > building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt
> to
> > rekindle this conversation with the community.  We included launching an
> > endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
>
> Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving
> forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
> > Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is
> > probably worthwhile.
>
> I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
>
> The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an
> investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think
> directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual
> funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate,
> much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and
> levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might
> not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other
> large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Quality issues

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> In the mean time with your "I do not want to be involved attitude" you are
>
the proverbial sailor who stays on shore.



Well, me and 99. percent of the global population. Not everyone has to
contribute to Wikidata. :)



> My arguments are plausible and I actively work towards getting them
> implemented. I do not need to convince people to do my work. The only thing
> I want to do is ask people for their support so that we get sooner to the
> stage where we will share in the sum of all available knowledge, something
> we do not really do at this stage.
>


Thanks for the spirited debate, and good luck to you, Gerard. May your
efforts be fruitful.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Fundraising banner (again)

[Erik Zachte]

The ad would be slightly more palatable if it used coffee-darkbrown instead of 
epitaph-black for the plea you can't ignore.

Erik Zachte

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
wctaiwan
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png

I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.

(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)

wctaiwan


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



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Bohdan Melnychuk]

Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we 
are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads 
but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I 
really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little 
content initially because the rest is covered in ads. This all went too 
far and I hope that Fundraising guys think of less haunting way of 
calling for donation.


--Base

On 02.12.2015 3:48, Erik Zachte wrote:

The ad would be slightly more palatable if it used coffee-darkbrown instead of 
epitaph-black for the plea you can't ignore.

Erik Zachte

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
wctaiwan
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png

I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.

(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)

wctaiwan


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



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




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[Nathan]

The reply every year is that the banners are keyed for maximum
effectiveness, even if they are intrusive, in order to make the overall
fundraising drive as short as possible. Fundraising has made small tweaks
to various banners, but generally have not been willing to significantly
reduce the effectiveness of the ads in order to appease Wikimedians... who
are - lets be honest - not a large portion of the target population.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[wctaiwan]

http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png

I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.

(That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)

wctaiwan


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

[Leila Zia]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have chatted with a number of folks over the years about ways to help
> promote the annual fundraising appeal - but in ways that did not feel so
> serious that it was out of our character to post on social media.
>
> Good news - it appears this year Jimmy has participated in a video that
> serves this purpose very well. :)
>

It was very refreshing to see this one. Thanks for sharing it. :-)

Leila


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

[Pine W]

As good as having an endowment might be, I would like to see substantial
improvements to WMF's budget transparency and annual plan process before
the fundraising for an endowment starts.

Pine
On Dec 1, 2015 15:25, "Risker"  wrote:

> Heh.  $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on
> an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants
> that are separate from direct fundraising.  It *might* last 5-7 years of
> bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no
> software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own
> desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to
> chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for
> free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major
> changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep
> up-to-date with this.
>
> This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to
> include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating
> functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to
> proceed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha  wrote:
>
> > do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any
> > fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the
> > position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and
> keep
> > running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
> >
> > Mardetanha
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi all-
> > > >
> > > > For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions
> > > >  about whether and when
> to
> > > begin
> > > > building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an
> attempt
> > > to
> > > > rekindle this conversation with the community.  We included launching
> > an
> > > > endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
> > >
> > > Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving
> > > forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is
> > > > probably worthwhile.
> > >
> > > I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
> > >
> > > The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an
> > > investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think
> > > directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual
> > > funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate,
> > > much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and
> > > levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might
> > > not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other
> > > large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Phoebe
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

[K. Peachey]

I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I
doubt it will be a click through to the file page.

Which style guide was used for the creation of this ad?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Fundraising banner (again)

[MZMcBride]

Bohdan Melnychuk wrote:
>Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we
>are showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads
>but looks exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I
>really have a difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little
>content initially because the rest is covered in ads. This all went too
>far and I hope that Fundraising guys think of less haunting way of
>calling for donation.

Yes, it's definitely an advertisement. Adblock and others should treat it
as such. I don't think this ad is haunting, though. I'm a little sad that
when I clicked the Imgur link, I actually expected worse.

Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
has not yet sunk to that yet.

Samuel Klein wrote:
>I think a more pressing response to this is to reduce the budget to get
>some breathing room, increase work through partnerships (which Wikimedia
>doesn't have to fund entirely on its own), and increase non-banner revenue
>streams.
>
>It's also key to improve banner effectiveness.  How nice it would be to
>have a composite that combines measures of the favorability of the banner
>among readers (most of whom don't donate anyway), mood setting & meme
>propagation, and the reduction in usability of the site (which may have an
>effect over months), against the immediate fundraising impact.  A banner
>that is 5% better with improved favorability among readers may be better
>than a banner that is 20% better but with double the unfavorability.
>
>There are thousands of worthy projects that have expanded their budgets as
>far as they could, then expand in-your-face banners as far as they can,
>and only stop once their sites are quite difficult to use.   It happens
>gradually (I'm looking at you, Wikia ;) but the result is the usability
>equivalent of linkrot.  Let's not let WP end up like that.

I don't have much to add to what SJ wrote recently in a related thread.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Hong Kong - Chapter Report

[Wong Rover]

Dear all,

The hyperlink of Financial Statement should be this one:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r7eu1abwu6mhibm/WMHK-as-at-Nov-2015.xlsx?dl=0


2015-12-01 22:44 GMT+08:00 Venus Lui :

> Dear Wikipedians,
>
> On behalf of Wikimedia Hong Kong, I would like to inform you all that the
> Annual Report 2015-2016 and also the Activity Report 2015 of Wikimedia Hong
> Kong is now on the Report Page. Below are the links for the report.
>
> Annual Report 2015-2016:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_HK/2015-2016_annual_plan
>
> News about the Wikipedia Education Program in Hong Kong:
>
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Countries/Hong_Kong#Current_Activities
>
> Activity Report 2015:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Activity_report_2015
>
> Wikimedia Hong Kong Financial Statement (November 2015):
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/m/login?cont=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fhome%3Fpreview%3DWMHK%2Bas%2Bat%2BNov%2B2015.xlsx
>
>
> For further information or if you have any questions, please do not
> hesitate to contact the Board member of Wikimedia Hong Kong or me. Thank
> you very much.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Venus Lui
> Project Coordinator
> Wikimedia Hong Kong
> Mobile: +852 9380 7320
> Email: venuslui...@gmail.com / venus...@wikimedia.hk
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>


-- 
Rover T.F. Wong
President
Wikimedia Hong Kong
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Fundraising banner (again)

[Peter Southwood]

Money is clearly more important than the people who do the work,

Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Bohdan Melnychuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 4:01 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

Yeah ad is the word. We claim Wikipedia being ad-less but actually we are 
showing people stuff which only in deep sense is different from ads but looks 
exactly the same. Or, actually, in this case it looks worse. I really have a 
difficulty recalling a site which shows me so little content initially because 
the rest is covered in ads. This all went too far and I hope that Fundraising 
guys think of less haunting way of calling for donation.

--Base

On 02.12.2015 3:48, Erik Zachte wrote:
> The ad would be slightly more palatable if it used coffee-darkbrown instead 
> of epitaph-black for the plea you can't ignore.
>
> Erik Zachte
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of wctaiwan
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 0:44
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)
>
> http://i.imgur.com/SbfrTxi.png
>
> I know I'm just pissing in the wind, but this is not OK.
>
> (That's a maximized browser on an 1366x768 display.)
>
> wctaiwan
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


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


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7163 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Revision scoring as a service launched

[Steven Walling]

This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
>
> Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
> official launch of revision scoring as a service <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service>
> and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
>
> Blog post:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> <
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> >
> Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
>
> First off: what’s revision scoring <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale>?
> On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to automatically
> “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
> good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though, is to
> fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools on
> good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension to how
> we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole blog
> post <
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/>
> if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome of this
> project.
>
> I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
> congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the project
> contributors <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team>
> on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s side
> project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in – literally
> – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
> distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers. We
> worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions and as
> of today revision scores are integrated <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES>
> in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects and 3rd
> party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
> technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular) and
> seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia Germany.
>
> So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON TREES
>  you can
> confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
> http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/> Wikipedia.
>
> Dario
>
>
> Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org <
> http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[Milos Rancic]

Wikimedia is in the position to work with many institutions not
committed to open access, free software etc. That's not the problem.
The position of Wikimedia movement is in such position that it's not
just about free knowledge, but about common good of the whole
humanity. And (the most of) legitimate representatives of humanity are
outside open access, free content etc.

I've followed the issue of linguists vs. Elsevier. Although I don't
know the whole background, I could say that that particular
confrontation is not something we should react differently than giving
more prominence to open access journals.

However, this issue is a game changer. Elsevier attacks a member of
our own wider movement. And we are the only entity inside of that
wider movement capable to make a proper response. Which means that we
have to do that, as our responsibility in particular is related to our
wider movement.

If we send clear message, anyone willing to make that kind of pressure
to any entity inside of our wider movement would have to have in mind
that we will respond, as well.

If we fail to send such messages in the situation like this one, we
gamble with being perceived as weak.

As per John, it's not about removing references, as we are doing our
job and closed-source journals are one of the valid sources of
information. However, it is about formal relations between Wikimedia
Foundation, other Wikimedia organizations and Elsevier.



On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
> I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that
> works.
> What I think is that we don't put the same effort  indoing something with
> the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based.
>
> Two pop up in my mind:
> the Signalling Open Access project, aimed to put an icon aside every
> reference in Wikipedia, to signal if the article is OA or closed. Ask
> Daniel Mietchen for updates.
>
> The other one is the possibility of uploading thousands of articles in
> wikisource, directly in HTML. Remember, we have Wikipedia Zero: putting
> stuff onWikisource means having a free digital library to everyone. In the
> recent Wikisource conference in Vienna we talked about that too,  and rhere
> is an ongoing discussion in the English Wikisource.
>
> Both these two projects could have a huge impact on open access and in
> general for our mission, but they rely on the good will and free time of
> few individuals, and have done for years now.
>
> Aubrey
> Il 01/dic/2015 03:54 "John Mark Vandenberg"  ha scritto:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>> > May we actually stop having anything with these pest?
>> >
>> > http://custodians.online/
>>
>> I dont believe we can stop using closed access journals, as that would
>> reduce the quality of our projects, but we can use links to them as an
>> opportunity to educate the public.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28idea_lab%29#Solidarity_with_Library_Genesis_and_Sci-Hub
>>
>> However WMF should discontinue its relationship with Elsevier and
>> Taylor & Francis via the 'Wikipedia Library'.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Taylor_%26_Francis
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Revision scoring as a service launched

[Jane Darnell]

It's mentioned in the MIT Review here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Steven Walling 
wrote:

> This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
> >
> > Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
> > official launch of revision scoring as a service <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service>
> > and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
> >
> > Blog post:
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > <
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> > >
> > Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
> >
> > First off: what’s revision scoring <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale
> >?
> > On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to automatically
> > “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
> > good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though, is
> to
> > fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools on
> > good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension to
> how
> > we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole blog
> > post <
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> >
> > if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome of
> this
> > project.
> >
> > I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
> > congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the project
> > contributors <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team
> >
> > on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s side
> > project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in –
> literally
> > – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
> > distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers. We
> > worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions and as
> > of today revision scores are integrated <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES
> >
> > in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects and
> 3rd
> > party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
> > technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular) and
> > seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia Germany.
> >
> > So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON
> TREES
> >  you can
> > confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
> > http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/> Wikipedia.
> >
> > Dario
> >
> >
> > Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org <
> > http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[Pine W]

A chronic problem for most of the movement is a shortage of human
resources, both volunteer and paid. Hopefully the work of Aaron H. and
company on revision scoring will help us to keep more of our good-faith
newbies. I also think that the bitey-ness of some Wikimedians can be
counterproductive, and I'd like to see broad improvements in civility on
our projects which I hope would correlate with improved contributor
retention.

I agree that it would be good to have more open access sources available,
and I like the concept of open access signalling.

I'm happy to talk about the human resources shortage issue in more depth;
let's fork that subject if there is interest in continuing to discuss it.

Pine
On Dec 1, 2015 12:22 AM, "Andrea Zanni"  wrote:

> I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that
> works.
> What I think is that we don't put the same effort  indoing something with
> the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based.
>
> Two pop up in my mind:
> the Signalling Open Access project, aimed to put an icon aside every
> reference in Wikipedia, to signal if the article is OA or closed. Ask
> Daniel Mietchen for updates.
>
> The other one is the possibility of uploading thousands of articles in
> wikisource, directly in HTML. Remember, we have Wikipedia Zero: putting
> stuff onWikisource means having a free digital library to everyone. In the
> recent Wikisource conference in Vienna we talked about that too,  and rhere
> is an ongoing discussion in the English Wikisource.
>
> Both these two projects could have a huge impact on open access and in
> general for our mission, but they rely on the good will and free time of
> few individuals, and have done for years now.
>
> Aubrey
> Il 01/dic/2015 03:54 "John Mark Vandenberg"  ha scritto:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> > > May we actually stop having anything with these pest?
> > >
> > > http://custodians.online/
> >
> > I dont believe we can stop using closed access journals, as that would
> > reduce the quality of our projects, but we can use links to them as an
> > opportunity to educate the public.
> >
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28idea_lab%29#Solidarity_with_Library_Genesis_and_Sci-Hub
> >
> > However WMF should discontinue its relationship with Elsevier and
> > Taylor & Francis via the 'Wikipedia Library'.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Taylor_%26_Francis
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[Pine W]

According to
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Template_Agreement and
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central,
the answer appears to be yes that Wikipedia Zero now includes Wikisource.
(It would be good to get clarification on whether all the services
described on Foundation wiki are automatically included in Wikipedia Zero,
included on a per-carrier basis, or some other scheme.)

Pine
On Dec 1, 2015 12:29 AM, "John Mark Vandenberg"  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Andrea Zanni 
> wrote:
> > I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that
> > works.
> > What I think is that we don't put the same effort  indoing something with
> > the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based.
> >
> > Two pop up in my mind:
> > the Signalling Open Access project, aimed to put an icon aside every
> > reference in Wikipedia, to signal if the article is OA or closed. Ask
> > Daniel Mietchen for updates.
> >
> > The other one is the possibility of uploading thousands of articles in
> > wikisource, directly in HTML. Remember, we have Wikipedia Zero: putting
> > stuff onWikisource means having a free digital library to everyone.
>
> According to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
> and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero , it is Wikipedia
> only.
> Is that out of date?  Does it now include Wikisource?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[Pete Forsyth]

For what it's worth, we had a panel discussion at WMF about this, with Open
Access advocates and staff from WMF. Freely licensed video of the session
is available on YouTube. See here for video links:
http://wikistrategies.net/oa-Wikipedia-panel/

One of our panelists, John Dove, wrote a follow-up blog post; others are in
the works.

Pete
[[User: Peteforsyth]]

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/12/open-access-in-closed-access-world/
On Nov 30, 2015 6:33 PM, "Milos Rancic"  wrote:

> May we actually stop having anything with these pest?
>
> http://custodians.online/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[Andrea Zanni]

I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that
works.
What I think is that we don't put the same effort  indoing something with
the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based.

Two pop up in my mind:
the Signalling Open Access project, aimed to put an icon aside every
reference in Wikipedia, to signal if the article is OA or closed. Ask
Daniel Mietchen for updates.

The other one is the possibility of uploading thousands of articles in
wikisource, directly in HTML. Remember, we have Wikipedia Zero: putting
stuff onWikisource means having a free digital library to everyone. In the
recent Wikisource conference in Vienna we talked about that too,  and rhere
is an ongoing discussion in the English Wikisource.

Both these two projects could have a huge impact on open access and in
general for our mission, but they rely on the good will and free time of
few individuals, and have done for years now.

Aubrey
Il 01/dic/2015 03:54 "John Mark Vandenberg"  ha scritto:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> > May we actually stop having anything with these pest?
> >
> > http://custodians.online/
>
> I dont believe we can stop using closed access journals, as that would
> reduce the quality of our projects, but we can use links to them as an
> opportunity to educate the public.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28idea_lab%29#Solidarity_with_Library_Genesis_and_Sci-Hub
>
> However WMF should discontinue its relationship with Elsevier and
> Taylor & Francis via the 'Wikipedia Library'.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Taylor_%26_Francis
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
> I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that
> works.
> What I think is that we don't put the same effort  indoing something with
> the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based.
>
> Two pop up in my mind:
> the Signalling Open Access project, aimed to put an icon aside every
> reference in Wikipedia, to signal if the article is OA or closed. Ask
> Daniel Mietchen for updates.
>
> The other one is the possibility of uploading thousands of articles in
> wikisource, directly in HTML. Remember, we have Wikipedia Zero: putting
> stuff onWikisource means having a free digital library to everyone.

According to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero , it is Wikipedia
only.
Is that out of date?  Does it now include Wikisource?

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

I felt strongly enough about Wikipedia's relationship with open access
content that I wrote about the issue.
<
http://bluerasberry.com/2015/10/wikipedia-open-access-and-the-wikipedia-library/
>

yours,

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> For what it's worth, we had a panel discussion at WMF about this, with Open
> Access advocates and staff from WMF. Freely licensed video of the session
> is available on YouTube. See here for video links:
> http://wikistrategies.net/oa-Wikipedia-panel/
>
> One of our panelists, John Dove, wrote a follow-up blog post; others are in
> the works.
>
> Pete
> [[User: Peteforsyth]]
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/12/open-access-in-closed-access-world/
> On Nov 30, 2015 6:33 PM, "Milos Rancic"  wrote:
>
> > May we actually stop having anything with these pest?
> >
> > http://custodians.online/
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Something fun to share - Jimmy jokes about his "stare" fundraising photo

[Gregory Varnum]

Greetings,

I have chatted with a number of folks over the years about ways to help promote 
the annual fundraising appeal - but in ways that did not feel so serious that 
it was out of our character to post on social media.

Good news - it appears this year Jimmy has participated in a video that serves 
this purpose very well. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njHebJTM0nk

Entertaining way to help kick off the fundraising appeal, and one that I am 
already having fun sharing on Twitter and FB. Given how seriously many of us 
take and talk about the campaign, this was a bit of levity I appreciated. :)

Enjoy!

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

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2016: Registration now open #WMCON16

[Daniela Gentner]

Dear Wikimedians,

We are delighted to inform you that the registration for the Wikimedia
Conference 2016 [1], which will be held in Berlin from Friday, April
22, through Sunday, April 24, is now open!

Following Christian’s invitation and Nicole’s email regarding the
Program Design Process [2], we would like to provide you with
important information regarding the eligibility for participation,
participant number regulation, registration procedure, specifics in
regards to the travel and hotel booking as well as the visa
application process.

== Eligibility criteria ==
The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference
2016 are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia
Foundation. Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have
been officially recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation by today
(December 1, 2015), must have shown signs of recent activity and be
up-to-date on their reporting, latest by January 1, 2016 to be
eligible to participate.

Before registering, please check the eligibility and status of your
affiliate[3]. Only affiliates with the status “ready to register” can
proceed with the registration process. For all others, we recommend to
catch up on your reports before January 1, 2016.

==Participant number regulation==
Chapters and Thematic Organizations can send two delegates; or up to
four, if they have paid staff; User Groups can send one delegate. The
eligibility table on meta lists each affiliate and the respective
number of delegates that can be sent to the Wikimedia Conference 2016
[3].

==Registration information==
To make the conference a success, it will be essential for the invited
affiliates to deliberately choose their delegates. We recommend to
follow the “How to select the delegates” information, which is
published on meta [4].

Persons who are selected by their organization to represent them at
the conference need to register via the registration form [5]. The
registration deadline is Friday, January 15, 2016. Please note that we
won’t be able to accept and process registrations after this deadline.

We also hope that several members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees and staff, the Funds Dissemination Committee as well as the
Affiliations Committee will participate in the conference. We see a
huge advantage in having their representatives on site and encourage
them to take part in a range of talks and discussions. Please also
register via the registration link.

In addition to the core-conference, pre-conference workshops on
program design, evaluation, and community learning on Wednesday and
Thursday, April 20-21, are organized by the Learning and Evaluation
team of the WMF [6]. Should you be interested in participating in
these workshops, you can indicate your interest in the registration
form as well.

For the purpose of helping affiliates to check that only their
selected representatives have registered and enable participants to
connect before the conference and stay in involved afterwards, we will
publish all participants’ names on the meta page [7] shortly after
registration.

Further information on the registration process can be retrieved from meta [8].

==Hotel and travel booking==
WMDE has blocked a number of hotel rooms at Motel One Leipziger Platz,
which is in walking-distance to the conference venue as well as the
WMDE office.

Representatives of affiliates with an annual plan grant (group 1) will
need to book and pay for their hotel rooms as well as travel
individually. The hotel booking form and price information can be
found on meta [9].

Affiliates which don’t receive funding via an annual plan grant (group
2) will be supported by WMDE for their hotel needs and WMF for their
travel booking.

Members of the WMF Board, FDC, AffCom or WMF staff (group 3) receive
travel and hotel booking support by the WMF Travel department.

We advise you to check meta [3] to which group you belong to.

==Visa information==
In case you are in need of a visa, WMDE will assist you with the
application process. All relevant information and necessary steps to
undertake are described on meta [10].

Wikimedia Deutschland is looking forward to welcoming you in Berlin in April!

Please do not hesitate to reach out to us any time via
wm...@wikimedia.de should you have any questions or comments.


Best regards,

Wenke and Daniela
--
Organizing Team WMCON
Wikimedia Deutschland
wm...@wikimedia.de

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Program_Design_Process
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Eligibility_Criteria#Overview_Eligibility_Statuses_of_Chapters.2C_Thematic_Organizations.2C_User_Groups_and_Others
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Program_Design_Process#How_to_select_the_delegates
[5] http://wmde.org/WMCON16-registrationform
[6] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion

[phoebe ayers]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions
>  about whether and when to begin
> building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt to
> rekindle this conversation with the community.  We included launching an
> endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.

Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving
forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is
> probably worthwhile.

I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.

The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an
investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think
directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual
funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate,
much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and
levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might
not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other
large socially-minded organizations for ideas.

best,
Phoebe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This thread is called "quality". There are ways to include multiple
truisms. Wikidata is the data project of the Wikimedia Foundation, it is a
wiki, so when you have issues, deal with it.

I prefer to quote what John Ruskin had to say: "Quality is never an
accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort". I am more
concerned with the fact that the Linguapax Prize does not have all of its
winners. I am more concerned that half of the items of Wikidata have fewer
than three statements.

These are issues that deal with the quality of Wikidata. As Magnus has
started to produce reports on issues between Mix'n Match and Wikidata, he
invites people to improve our quality. It is one way in which the quality
of our current data improves measurably.

When I blog about the Nansen Refugee award I report on the type of issues I
find in Wikipedia. It is easy to find fault. The point however is not that
Wikipedia is bad nor that Wikidata is good. The point is that in order to
achieve quality there is a lot of work to do.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 1 December 2015 at 12:27, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Article by Mark Graham in Slate, Nov. 30, 2015:
>
> Why Does Google Say Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel?
> It has to do with the fact that the Web is now optimized for machines, not
> people.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/11/why_does_google_say_jerusalem_is_the_capital_of_israel.html
>
> Excerpt:
>
> [...] because of the ease of separating content from containers, the
> provenance of data is often obscured. Contexts are stripped away, and
> sources vanish into Google’s black box. For instance, most of the
> information in Google’s infoboxes on cities doesn’t tell us where the data
> is sourced from.
>
> Second, because of the stripping away of context, it can be challenging to
> represent important nuance. In the case of Jerusalem, the issue is less
> that particular viewpoints about the city’s status as a capital are true or
> false, but rather that there can be multiple truths, all of which are hard
> to fold into a single database entry. Finally, it’s difficult for users to
> challenge or contest representations that they deem to be unfair. Wikidata
> is, and Freebase used to be, built on user-generated content, but those
> users tend to be a highly specialized group—it’s not easy for lay users to
> participate in those platforms. And those platforms often aren’t the place
> in which their data is ultimately displayed, making it hard for some users
> to find them. Furthermore, because Google’s Knowledge Base is so opaque
> about where it pulls its information from, it is often unclear if those
> sites are even the origins of data in the first place.
>
> Jerusalem is just one example among many in which knowledge bases are
> increasingly distancing (and in some case cutting off) debate about
> contested knowledges of places. [followed by more examples]
>
> My point is not that any of these positions are right or wrong. It is
> instead that the move to linked data and the semantic Web means that many
> decisions about how places are represented are increasingly being made by
> people and processes far from, and invisible to, people living under the
> digital shadows of those very representations. Contestations are
> centralized and turned into single data points that make it difficult for
> local citizens to have a significant voice in the co-construction of their
> own cities. [...]
>
> Linked data and the machine-readable Web have important implications for
> representation, voice, and ultimately power in cities, and we need to
> ensure that we aren't seduced into codifying, categorizing, and structuring
> in cases when ambiguity, not certainty, reigns.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Andreas Kolbe]

Article by Mark Graham in Slate, Nov. 30, 2015:

Why Does Google Say Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel?
It has to do with the fact that the Web is now optimized for machines, not
people.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/11/why_does_google_say_jerusalem_is_the_capital_of_israel.html

Excerpt:

[...] because of the ease of separating content from containers, the
provenance of data is often obscured. Contexts are stripped away, and
sources vanish into Google’s black box. For instance, most of the
information in Google’s infoboxes on cities doesn’t tell us where the data
is sourced from.

Second, because of the stripping away of context, it can be challenging to
represent important nuance. In the case of Jerusalem, the issue is less
that particular viewpoints about the city’s status as a capital are true or
false, but rather that there can be multiple truths, all of which are hard
to fold into a single database entry. Finally, it’s difficult for users to
challenge or contest representations that they deem to be unfair. Wikidata
is, and Freebase used to be, built on user-generated content, but those
users tend to be a highly specialized group—it’s not easy for lay users to
participate in those platforms. And those platforms often aren’t the place
in which their data is ultimately displayed, making it hard for some users
to find them. Furthermore, because Google’s Knowledge Base is so opaque
about where it pulls its information from, it is often unclear if those
sites are even the origins of data in the first place.

Jerusalem is just one example among many in which knowledge bases are
increasingly distancing (and in some case cutting off) debate about
contested knowledges of places. [followed by more examples]

My point is not that any of these positions are right or wrong. It is
instead that the move to linked data and the semantic Web means that many
decisions about how places are represented are increasingly being made by
people and processes far from, and invisible to, people living under the
digital shadows of those very representations. Contestations are
centralized and turned into single data points that make it difficult for
local citizens to have a significant voice in the co-construction of their
own cities. [...]

Linked data and the machine-readable Web have important implications for
representation, voice, and ultimately power in cities, and we need to
ensure that we aren't seduced into codifying, categorizing, and structuring
in cases when ambiguity, not certainty, reigns.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] Quality issues

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> So identify an issue and it can be dealt with.
>


The fact an issue *can* be dealt with does not mean that it *will* be dealt
with.

For example, in the post that opened this discussion a little over a week
ago, you said:

"At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach."

These were your own words: "hardly anything resulted from such outreach."
Wikimedia is three years into this project. If people produce lists of
quality issues, that's great, but if nothing happens as a result, that's
not so great.

An example of this is available in this very thread. Three days ago I
mentioned the issues with the Grasulf II of Friuli entries on Reasonator
and Wikidata. I didn't expect that you or anyone else would fix them, and
they haven't been, at the time of writing.

You certainly could have fixed them -- you have made hundreds of edits on
Wikidata since replying to that post of mine -- but you haven't. Adding new
data is more satisfying than sourcing and improving an obscure entry. (If
you're wondering why I didn't fix the entry myself, see the section "And to
answer the obvious question …" in last month's Signpost op-ed.[1])

This problem is replicated across the Wikimedia universe. Wikimedia
projects are run by volunteers. They work on what interests them, or
whatever they have an investment in. Fixing old errors is not as appealing
as importing 2 million items of new data (including tens or hundreds of
thousands of erroneous ones), because fixing errors is slow work. It
retards the growth of your edit count! You spend one hour researching a
date, and all you get for that effort is one lousy edit in your
contributions history. There are plenty of tasks allowing you to rack up
500 edits in 5 minutes. People seem to prefer those.

That is why Wikipedia has the familiar backlogs in areas like copyright
infringement or AfC. Even warning templates indicating bias or other
problematic content often sit for years without being addressed.

There is a systemic mismatch between data creation and data curation. There
is a lot of energy for the former, and very little energy for the latter.
That is why initiatives like the one started by WMF board member James
Heilman and others, to have the English Wikipedia's medical articles
peer-reviewed, are so important. They are small steps in the right
direction.



> When we are afraid about a Seigenthaler type of event based on Wikidata,
> rest assured there is plenty wrong in either Wikipedia or Wikidata tha
> makes it possible for it to happen. The most important thing is to deal
> with it responsibly. Just being afraid will not help us in any way. Yes we
> need quality and quantity. As long as we make a best effort to improve our
> data, we will do well.
>


That's "eventualism". "Quality is terrible, but eventually it will be
great, because ... we're all trying, and it's a wiki!" To me that sounds
more like religious faith or magical thinking than empirical science.

Things being on a wiki does not guarantee quality; far from it.[2][3][4][5]



> As to the Wikipedian is residence, that is his opinion. At the same time
> the article on ebola has been very important. It may not be science but it
> certainly encyclopaedic. At the same time this Wikipedian in residence is
> involved, makes a positive contribution and while he may make mistakes he
> is part of the solution.
>
> I am happy that you propose that work is to be done. What have you done but
> more importantly what are you going to do? For me there is "Number of
> edits:
> 2,088,923" 
>


I will do what I can to encourage Wikimedia Foundation board members and
management to review the situation, in consultation with outside academics
like those at the Oxford Internet Institute who are concerned about present
developments, and to consider whether more stringent sourcing policies are
required for Wikidata in order to assure the quality and traceability of
data in the Wikidata corpus.

The public is the most important stakeholder in this, and should be
informed and involved. If there are quality issues, the Wikimedia
Foundation should be completely transparent about them in its public
communications, neither minimising nor exaggerating the issues. Known
problems and potential issues should be publicised as widely as possible in
order to minimise the harm to society resulting from uncritical reuse of
faulty data.

I have started to reach out to scholars and journalists, inviting them to
review this thread as well as related materials, and form their own
conclusions. I may write an op-ed about it in the Signpost, because I
believe it's an 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
 I do work on quality issues. I blog about them. I work towards
implementing solutions.  I have fixed quite a few errors in Wikidata
and I do not rack up as many edits as I could because of it.

In the mean time with your "I do not want to be involved attitude" you are
the proverbial sailor who stays on shore. It is your option to get your
hands dirty or not. However, a friend of mine mentioned this attitude and
compared it to the people who said that Wikipedia would never work. That is
fine so I will  just move on away from many of your arguments..

I do not care about profit. I have over 2 million edits on Wikidata alone
and I have a few others on other projects as well. They may, it is implicit
in the license make a profit. The point is that as more data is freed, it
will free more data. With more free data we can inform more people. We can
share more of the sum of all available knowledge.

I wonder, there are many ways in which quality can be improved and all you
do is refer to others. Why should I bother with your arguments when they
are not yours and when you do not show how to make a difference? My
arguments are plausible and I actively work towards getting them
implemented. I do not need to convince people to do my work. The only thing
I want to do is ask people for their support so that we get sooner to the
stage where we will share in the sum of all available knowledge, something
we do not really do at this stage.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 1 December 2015 at 15:30, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So identify an issue and it can be dealt with.
> >
>
>
> The fact an issue *can* be dealt with does not mean that it *will* be dealt
> with.
>
> For example, in the post that opened this discussion a little over a week
> ago, you said:
>
> "At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach."
>
> These were your own words: "hardly anything resulted from such outreach."
> Wikimedia is three years into this project. If people produce lists of
> quality issues, that's great, but if nothing happens as a result, that's
> not so great.
>
> An example of this is available in this very thread. Three days ago I
> mentioned the issues with the Grasulf II of Friuli entries on Reasonator
> and Wikidata. I didn't expect that you or anyone else would fix them, and
> they haven't been, at the time of writing.
>
> You certainly could have fixed them -- you have made hundreds of edits on
> Wikidata since replying to that post of mine -- but you haven't. Adding new
> data is more satisfying than sourcing and improving an obscure entry. (If
> you're wondering why I didn't fix the entry myself, see the section "And to
> answer the obvious question …" in last month's Signpost op-ed.[1])
>
> This problem is replicated across the Wikimedia universe. Wikimedia
> projects are run by volunteers. They work on what interests them, or
> whatever they have an investment in. Fixing old errors is not as appealing
> as importing 2 million items of new data (including tens or hundreds of
> thousands of erroneous ones), because fixing errors is slow work. It
> retards the growth of your edit count! You spend one hour researching a
> date, and all you get for that effort is one lousy edit in your
> contributions history. There are plenty of tasks allowing you to rack up
> 500 edits in 5 minutes. People seem to prefer those.
>
> That is why Wikipedia has the familiar backlogs in areas like copyright
> infringement or AfC. Even warning templates indicating bias or other
> problematic content often sit for years without being addressed.
>
> There is a systemic mismatch between data creation and data curation. There
> is a lot of energy for the former, and very little energy for the latter.
> That is why initiatives like the one started by WMF board member James
> Heilman and others, to have the English Wikipedia's medical articles
> peer-reviewed, are so important. They are small steps in the right
> direction.
>
>
>
> > When we are afraid about a Seigenthaler type of event based on Wikidata,
> > rest assured there is plenty wrong in either Wikipedia or Wikidata tha
> > makes it possible for it to happen. The most important thing is to deal
> > with it responsibly. Just being afraid will not help us in any way. Yes
> we
> > need quality and quantity. As long as we make a best effort to improve
> our
> > data, we will do well.
> >
>
>
> That's "eventualism". "Quality is terrible, but eventually it will be
> great, because ... we're all trying, and it's a wiki!" To me that sounds
> more like religious faith or magical thinking than empirical science.
>
> Things being on a wiki does not guarantee