Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-01 21:32 GMT-08:00 Andreas Kolbe :

> The gift from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation is of a little bit of interest,
> because its public announcement[3][5] came a mere three days after the
> Wikimedia Foundation said[9]

I see we're moving the goalposts back to an earlier conspiracy theory,
I guess that's success. The Brin Wojcicki Foundation actually made
their first gift to WMF in the 2010-11 fiscal year, just at a lower
level. [1] I was in the first meeting with them back in 2010, as well.
From everything I recall, they were a wonderful partner, and were
simply interested in supporting Wikimedia's existing activities and
plans.

Erik

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors/2010–2011

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> > Anne, I have mentioned several times in the past few days here on this
> list
> > Sue Gardner's 2008 email suggesting that the WMF enter into an "umbrella
> > relationship/agreement" or "business deal" with Google. In case you
> missed
> > it, here is the link again:
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf
> >
> > Scroll to the very end of the document to see the email in question. I am
> > still interested in learning what the results of that effort were.
>
> Nothing other than establishing some mutual points of contact, as far
> as I know. [...]
>


Thanks for your replies, Erik, and this overview.



> We did continue to cultivate the relationship with Google and
> continued to ask for support, and eventually Google made a one-time
> $2M donation. [1] As you know, Google also was one of the early
> supporters of Wikidata [2], and Sergey Brin's family foundation has
> also given to WMF in the past. [3] This was all unambiguously good for
> Wikimedia, and is all public knowledge.
>


The gift from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation is of a little bit of interest,
because its public announcement[3][5] came a mere three days after the
Wikimedia Foundation said[9] it would join Google and other Internet giants
in their protest against the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation – whose
implementation would have cost those companies *a lot* of money.

Today, we take it for granted that the Wikimedia Foundation is politically
active. But at the time, in 2011, many editors accustomed to practising
NPOV in their writing still assumed that the Wikimedia Foundation, as an
institution, would and should practise the same neutrality.

It always seemed likely to me that the $500,000 Brin Wojcicki Foundation
gift was related to the Wikimedia Foundation's support, especially as
Wojcicki, along with Jimmy Wales, was also on the board of Creative
Commons, where these matters were also being discussed.

At the time, Google critic Scott Cleland wrote[6], "Google led,
orchestrated, politically-framed and set the political tone for much of the
Web’s opposition to pending anti-piracy legislation, SOPA/PIPA, because
rule of law and effective enforcement of property rights online represent a
clear and present danger to Google’s anti-property-rights mission, open
philosophy, business model, innovation approach, competitive strategy, and
culture."

It left a little bit of a sour taste, because the Wikimedia Foundation
seemed to me to have loaded the dice in its communications to the
community, painting the consequences of the proposed legislation in the
most garish and alarming colours – implying that users might become
criminally liable for posting fair-use materials on Wikipedia,[9] that SOPA
threatened the survival of Wikipedia, etc. – in order to maximise community
support for the blackout.

WMF staffer Tim Starling later posted here on this list what seemed to me a
very cogent critique of some of the things the WMF did and didn't say to
the community.[7]

This lobbying partnership with Google has continued in the years since
then, with Jimmy Wales more recently joining Google's Advisory Council[8]
to campaign against European "right to be forgotten" legislation (another
law imposing cost burdens on Google).

One may agree with Google's political positions, for quite different and
independent reasons, but the fact that money changed hands to my mind
tainted the effort.

Andreas



> Beyond those donations, we've generally had an informal relationship
> with changing points of contact over the years. WMF has given tech
> talks at Google, for example, or our point of contact might help us
> get some passes for the I/O conference. Part of the mandate of the
> partnerships hire WMF made last year was to bring more of a systematic
> approach to these relationships, and as the org stabilizes it might be
> good to seek a broad conversation as to what that ideally should look
> like in terms of transparency, lines we shall not cross, etc.
>
> Generally speaking, when WMF did enter into significant business
> relationships, these are a matter of the public record in press
> releases and such: Yahoo back in 2005, Kaltura, PediaPress, Orange,
> the various WP Zero operators, some data center partners, etc. The
> Apple dictionary integration Brion mentions in [4] is an exception to
> the rule; contrary to Brion's recollection it actually predates even
> Sue Gardner and, as far as I know, was not announced at the time.
>
> Erik
>
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_announces_$2_million_grant_from_Google
> [2] https://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/Pressemitteilungen/PM_3_12_Wikidata_EN
> [3]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Brin_Wojcicki_Foundation_Announces_$500,000_Grant_to_Wikimedia
> [4]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082741.html
>
>
[5]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Chris Sherlock]

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:24 AM, Kevin Smith  wrote:
> 
>> You can tell me the scope was intended to be only for Wikimedia projects,
>> but that isn't what is said in that grant application. That document as it
>> stands literally states that it is to be an Internet search engine. No, I
>> correct myself. It says it is to be THE Internet's search engine.
>> 
> 
> Clearly there are still aspirations to include non-Wikimedia projects in
> the search results. I can't speak for the board, or c-levels. But I can say
> that in my work with the Discovery team, we have not been asked to, and
> have not had even rough plans to, search non-free information sources.

It’s not even the wrong thing to do :-) Thank you for clarifying this though. 
> 
>> So when you say than there is confusion between the internal presentation
>> and the official external grant application, I must respectfully disagree
>> with you. There is no such confusion. The two parts of the application I
>> have quoted cover almost a third of the grant application and I'd argue are
>> the key parts of the application.
>> 
> 
> I would argue that the deliverables are THE key part of the application,
> but I freely admit that you are correct that the other parts matter. And
> are somewhat disturbing.

That’s a fair perspective for those actually doing the important work of making 
sure the grant is fulfilled. The deliverables are extremely important, but from 
my POV, the deliverables for the “discovery” phase inform the rest of the 
project, which is where the rubber hits the road. The deliverables ask to set 
the core and usage and performance metrics, which must be determined from the 
overall overall grant objective. User research and testing, similarly, can’t 
just be executed but the study and testing has to be designed and scoped, which 
again has to come from the overall grant objective, which is what I highlighted 
earlier. 

> 
> There has been some handwaving going on from a variety of different parties
>> that "oh, it's just a Grant application, these things are very high level
>> and vague, it doesn't really matter what we write in it lets just put the
>> broadest possible objectives and vision for this thing and we'll deal the
>> scope later on after we've been given the grant money".
>> 
>> Others may not think this is not a concern. I do though, and I'm very
>> concerned that we are making grant applications and not really disclosing
>> our full intentions, and we are not making it clear what are the
>> corresponding scope limitations. Before someone objects, it's even worse
>> when I have asked about the first challenge that could threaten the project
>> and the response [3] is, in part:
>> 
> 
> Most of us on the Discovery team share your concerns about how this grant
> was conceived, pitched, received, and (not) publicized. Most of the team
> didn't see the grant until you did.

I feel need to tell those on the Discovery team who may think that my questions 
seem to be denigrating those on the team - I’m sorry if in any way I’ve written 
something that could give you a perception that I don’t believe in the worth of 
what you are doing. I want to put my hand up and take responsibility for it, 
because it’s absolutely not the case. My issues are literally with the Board of 
Trustees and the way they went about getting that grant, and set (or rather, 
didn’t set) effective and clearly-communicated strategy. 

Shortly after I sent that last email, I reread the Discovery FAQ again to see 
if I’d missed anything. And I realised that I had missed that there was a 
portal and a whole bunch of material already prepared by folks in that team. I 
mean, there is a gerrit reviewer hooked into the version control system and 
everything, so it’s all being done in the open, exactly in the way that I’ve 
been rabbiting on about in a number of emails. I can see that Chris Koerner has 
attempted to ensure that all the material has been communicated and centralised 
on the team’s Wiki, the team’s goals are tracking very nicely [1] Oliver did a 
study which I was going to go back to read but for the life of me I can’t find 
it… the portal is up and running [2] and I can see that the team have been 
continuing to hold their meetings and publish their minutes in a very open and 
accessible manner. 

So I’d like to not only apologise if I’ve offended or upset anyone in the 
Discovery team. That was never my intent. Actually, now that I’ve found how to 
view the work you are doing, I’m actually very impressed!

My only feedback is that information is *really* scattered. I’m finding it hard 
to follow what is going on, not that this should be a concern as I’m not doing 
the work. It might be nice to have a slightly reorganized page for this project 
so we can see what is being done. I’d love to see blog posts from the team 
showing off their work. It really helps to get to grips with what is going on. 

Anyway, it’s heartening to see 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

[Chris Sherlock]

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> 
> Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
> director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
> cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
> reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
> WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
> having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
> employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
> conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
> situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
> employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
> the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
> conversations, which they would have hear.

Agreed with your larger point about removal for/without cause. All I can say is 
that the bit I quoted doesn’t state for or without cause, it doesn’t seem to 
distinguish between the two modes of removal. 

> More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
> we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the
> board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
> which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
> we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
> James can stand in the next 'community board selection.’

Fair point. I’m definitely not a lawyer. Nobody would be happier to see James 
stand for reelection than myself. :-)

> Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you
> to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
> fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an email
> related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
> transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
> mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
> - I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
> either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
> But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
> the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
> that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
> release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
> confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
> are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
> document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
> community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
> transparent as possible about.

Jimmy, I agree with Kevin. Can you please release these emails? I realise you 
have a lot on your plate, but I think it would be good of you to release these 
emails soon. I trust you when you tell me that you are a champion of 
transparency and openness, and I also know you have had a lot on your plate 
lately so I’m trying not to put too much pressure on you at the moment. 

I think, however, that the sooner you release the emails, the sooner it helps 
the rest of us come to an understanding why the Board made their decisions and 
we can at the very least feel more confident in the integrity of the Board of 
Trustees. This issue has dragged on for over two months now, and none of us are 
still much the wiser, though many of us are beginning to put the pieces 
together in our own heads. Which is dangerous, as we may well be jumping to the 
wrong conclusions because we don’t have enough information. Unfortunately, the 
lack of information is something that only the Board can resolve for us.

There are a number of other questions that still need answering around the 
grant application, so I’d love to see you clarify them soon also.

Chris


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Ukraine’s Board

[Katy Love]

Nataliia,

Thank you for this beautiful introduction to the new and current board
members, and tribute to those who have done their service (and for their
Wikizghushchivka!). It's so nice to know a bit more about the people behind
the usernames!

I look forward to working with the returning and new members of the WMUA
board.

Cheers,
Katy

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:09 PM, attolippip  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want formally introduce to you Wikimedia Ukraine’s Board, elected by our
> General Assembly on December 27, 2015.
>
> We can do it only now, as we have just recently successfully completed the
> requirements from our state to change the people responsible for the
> chapter officially [1].
>
> Three people has decided not to run this year, and I want to thank them
> wholeheartedly for all their time and efforts spent on our projects and
> making this world better for a change:
>
>
>-
>
>[[User:Amakuha]], Andrii Makuha. He has been our Chair for the last two
>years; his calm personality helped us a lot, especially during the most
>turbulent times of transferring «power» from one to another Chapter
> Board
>«without pain» [2], as Andrii has tried his best to understand everyone
> and
>continue the dialogues even when it seems that we won’t be able to come
> to
>any acceptable terms. By the way, awarding Wikizghushchivka [3] was his
>idea.
>-
>
>[[User:NickK]], Mykola Kozlenko, our Treasurer, with great analytical
>skills and profound knowledge about the Community (and I am talking not
>only about our local community, but the global one as well) and the
>Wikimedia Movement. He is actively engaged in Wikimedia Ukraine’s
> projects,
>though he lives in France and can contribute almost only via Internet.
> But
>he was able to be a vital part of organizing the rather successful
> regional
>conference WIkimedia CEE Meeting in Kyiv in December 2014.
>-
>
>[[User:Ліонкінг]], Levon Azizian. He is a lawyer in real life, a
>passionate Wiki(m|p)edian. He is blessed with the skills to make the
>dreams ideas come into reality, as he is very convincing and one
>just gets the feeling that (s)he can do it. And so they do it :) And
> then
>there is only a pure wonder of: wow, we have organized a wikiconference
> in
>2 weeks; wow, we have organized a CEE Meeting in a month; wow, we can
>actually (but it is really hard!) organize wikitrainings for two weeks
>non-stop in Luhansk region, go to librarians, preach about editing
>Wikipedia… and just around the corner there is a real war zone…
>
>
> These three are my dear friends, and I was really sorry to see them not
> running. But it was our dream from a long ago: to have more great
> Wiki(m|p)edians join the chapter and get interested in our projects. So
> here we have our newly elected three Board members:
>
>
>-
>
>[[User:Olena Zakharian]], Olena Zakharian. She was (and still is!) our
>press secretary, she is very keen about Nature and Freedom of Speech,
> she
>believes in our Mission and has contributed greatly to most of our
> projects
>before and she is a crucial part of our Board becoming more transparent
> for
>our Community.
>-
>
>[[User:Helgi]], Oleh Yatsozhynskyi. He is an active member of Ukrainian
>Wikipedia community, he has joined the organization only in September,
> but
>he is an invaluable part of us now (especially his directness :)) He is
>responsible for Wikiexpeditions now [4], and he is full of ideas and
> desire
>to implement them (and that’s something really really important, you
> know)
>-
>
>[[User:Pavlo1]], Pavlo Lakiichuk. He is the Secretary of the Board now,
>so he is responsible for all the boring stuff around the process of
> making
>decisions. He is also an active member of our local community, he cares
>about wikiprojects a lot. He has initiated a number of meetings for
>creators of “real” encyclopedias and wikipedians to talk a few issues
> over
>and get to know each other better (well, it works! quite a few myths
> were
>dismissed by talking over a cup of tea :) )
>
>
> The other four members of the Board, re-elected for this year, are:
>
>-
>
>[[User:Ilya]], Illia Korniiko. He is our Chair now. He codes. :) WLX
>Jury Tool is his pet project, but he was deprived of almost all chances
> to
>work on it, as our state’s bureaucratic system is quite a monster to
>overcome...
>-
>
>[[User:Юрій Булка]], Yurii Bulka. He is responsible for Wikipedia
>Education Program in Ukraine. And he was the one to suggest and
> implement
>the project of digitizing and making available the phonograph cylinder
>collection of Filaret Kolessa (early 20th century) [5]
>-
>
>[[User:Friend]], Pavlo Sokhan. He is an administrator of uk.wikiquote,
>works in a library. He has contributed greatly into organizing of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Philippe Beaudette]

Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole,
not to that amendment alone.  And I agree with him, for the record.

Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping
to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work
took place under Sue, and was the result of years of careful planning and
execution.

pb

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Dave, you're simply mistaken.
>
> The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before
> Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Coren
> >
> > I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
> > (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
> > on 1 June 2014.
> >
> > I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
> > widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
> > through better technology.
> >
> > I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
> > preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
> > the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
> > the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
> > repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
> > international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
> > privately.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use=revision=98138=90463
> >
> > BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
> > with "absolute certainty".
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> > > On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> > >> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> > >> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> > >> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
> > >
> > > I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
> > > things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:
> > >
> > > (a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
> > > abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
> > > Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.
> > >
> > > (b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of
> abuse
> > > were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
> > > started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
> > > had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue
> initiative
> > > from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been
> all
> > > Sue.
> > >
> > > (c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
> > > Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
> > > remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
> > > the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
> > > but they always tried their best.
> > >
> > > So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has
> no
> > > relationship with reality.
> > >
> > > -- Coren / Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 


Philippe Beaudette

phili...@beaudette.me
415-275-1424
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Pete Forsyth]

Dave, you're simply mistaken.

The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before
Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Dear Coren
>
> I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
> (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
> on 1 June 2014.
>
> I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
> widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
> through better technology.
>
> I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
> preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
> the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
> the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
> repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
> international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
> privately.
>
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use=revision=98138=90463
>
> BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
> with "absolute certainty".
>
> Dave
>
> On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> > On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> >> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> >> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> >> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
> >
> > I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
> > things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:
> >
> > (a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
> > abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
> > Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.
> >
> > (b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of abuse
> > were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
> > started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
> > had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue initiative
> > from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been all
> > Sue.
> >
> > (c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
> > Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
> > remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
> > the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
> > but they always tried their best.
> >
> > So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has no
> > relationship with reality.
> >
> > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My posts going to spam

[Lilburne]

On 29/02/2016 22:10, George Herbert wrote:

Just to confirm, all Jimmy's email in these threads were in my Gmail spam 
folder when I looked.

If you're using Gmail, go look at the spam folder and bring his messages back 
in...





Perhaps that is the penalty for attempting to compete with search companies.


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Inspire Campaign on content curation & review launches today!

[Anna Stillwell]

Thank you. Great work.
/a

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> I just finished submitting two ideas that I'd like to advise.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Automated_good-faith_newcomer_detection
> Build and deploy a machine learning model for flagging newcomers who are
> editing in good-faith. This has the potential to mitigate some of the
> secondary, demotivational effects when good-faith newcomers' work passes
> through curation/review processes.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Fast_and_slow_new_article_review
> Concerns about the introduction of spam into Wikipedia has lead
> Wikipedians towards implementing high speed new article review/curation
> processes. The speed at which editors tag articles for deletion via these
> processes is great for dealing with spam, but it might also be faster that
> good-faith new article creators can build their articles. We could build a
> machine learning classifier that is tuned to detect spammy article drafts.
> This would allow the new pages queue to be split into a high-speed spammy
> article review, and a low-speed article review that allows creators time to
> make a better first draft.
>
> I'll submit some more when I can.  :)
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris "Jethro" Schilling <
> cschill...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am pleased to announce the launch of the second Inspire Campaign for
>> IdeaLab.[1]  The theme of this campaign is focused on improving tasks
>> related to content curation & review in our projects:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Reviewing and organizing tasks are fundamental to all WIkimedia projects,
>> and these efforts maintain and directly improve the quality of our projects
>> in addition to increasing the visibility of their content.  We invite
>> everyone to participate by sharing your ideas and proposals on how to
>> enhance these efforts. Constructive feedback and collaboration on ideas is
>> encouraged - your skills and advice can elevate a project into action. The
>> campaign runs until 29 March.
>>
>> All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions,
>> community organizing and outreach, or something completely new! Grants are
>> available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects developed during this
>> campaign that need financial support.[2]  Google Hangout sessions are
>> available in March if you'd like to have a conversation about your ideas.[3]
>>
>> Join the Inspire Campaign and let’s work together to improve review and
>> curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and
>> accessible.
>>
>> With thanks,
>>
>> Jethro
>>
>> [1] You can learn more about the results of the first Inspire Campaign
>> here: <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Spring_2015_Inspire_campaign>
>> [2] 
>> [3]   (Note: If
>> another time would work better for you, feel free to e-mail me or ping me
>> on-wiki).
>>
>> ---
>> Chris "Jethro" Schilling
>> I JethroBT (WMF) 
>> Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Wmfall mailing list
>> wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wmfall mailing list
> wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
>
>


-- 
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

[Ellie Young]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa?  From the post-mortem
> on
> > Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a $100K WMF grant. This included
> > paying for the event coordinator, which is now budgeted separately. That
> > was for the finest event one could hope for.
> >
>
> Yes, in Haifa we got $100K from the WMF (and $100K for scholarships handled
> by the WMF). The total event costs were $270K. The majority of the budget
> was raised by scholarships.
>
>
> Ellie - "Project management from WMF" means you?
>

I wish! :-)   It's actually my salary, the salary we pay for local host
team project manager, and also registration services coordinator.

Ellie


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



-- 
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
eyo...@wikimedia.org
c. 510 701 8649
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My posts going to spam

[Florence Devouard]

Le 01/03/16 05:11, Austin Hair a écrit :

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:

On 2/29/2016 5:37 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:


I'm switching to this email address for posting, because apparently
there is some kind of weird problem between yahoo and google such that
gmail users see all or most of my messages in their SPAM folder.


It's not just Google either. My provider uses Yahoo's service for email, and
yet Jimmy's messages to the list, and as best I can tell only Jimmy's from
the ymail account, appear to get bounced and never even reach my spam
folder, let alone my inbox.


Just to be clear, this is not a list admin issue—Jimmy's ymail address
was initially moderated as a new subscriber, but we unmoderated him as
soon as he posted from it. The rest is on gmail, unfortunately.

It's also not the first time we've seen it. Others have had issues
posting from Yahoo addresses in the past.

Austin


Yup. I had the same issue in January with a yahoo address.

Admins (and several users) warned me. I switched to gmail and it works 
perfectly well now.


Florence



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meeting in Berlin (was: Executive transition planning)

[Sam Klein]

This is an excellent approach, thank you.   SJ

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Tim Moritz Hector <
tim-moritz.hec...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> I have been closely following the developments of the previous weeks. A lot
> of things have been said, concerns and frustration have been raised, hope
> has been voiced, and many many questions have been brought up. It’s hard to
> keep up with all the voices on all the different digital channels these
> days, and hard to find solutions and agreement in an unfacilitated stream.
>
> The first chance for many of us to personally meet, vent, and look ahead
> will be the the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. Wikimedia Deutschland is
> hosting the event, and welcoming movement affiliates, committees and board
> and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation from April 20-24.
>
> The movement is standing at a crossroad, but I am confident we can find the
> best path if we work together. Wikimedia Deutschland has gone through
> turbulent times in the past as well, and we would like to offer our
> experience and full support as host and facilitator of an essential part of
> this process. With your participation and contribution, Wikimedia
> Conference can be a platform for exchange and progress.
>
> Let us use this opportunity to jointly figure out how we want to move
> forward as a network of partners. The conference is the ideal platform to
> discuss and define next steps to find answers to questions like: How do we
> imagine a movement striving for free knowledge and what structure and
> framework best serve these needs? How do the WMF and affiliates define
> their role and responsibilities on a global and local level? How shall an
> revamped search process for a new executive leadership of the WMF look
> like, and what are the main qualifications new candidates should bring? How
> will the strategy process for the WMF evolve and how can affiliates
> contribute? How do we involve our stakeholders from within and outside of
> the movement in this process? How do we manage to look ahead rather than
> repeating the old narratives?  How do we create consensus on all these
> questions?
>
> In light of the current situation, we would like to dedicate a whole
> conference track to these issues. Of course, the initial conference topics
> of impact and capacity building are still important and will be covered as
> well.
>
> We have set up a page on meta and encourage you to share your questions,
> ideas, and concerns[1]. We intend to work closely with WMF and affiliate
> representatives in the coming eight weeks and create the program along
> their input.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you in Berlin in April,
> Tim Moritz Hector
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Program_Design_Process/Track
> :
> How to move forward
>
> --
> Tim Moritz Hector
> Chair of the Board
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | D-10963 Berlin
> http://www.wikimedia.de
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Kevin Gorman]

Popping back earlier in the thread a bit:

The statement "The Board has decided unanimously to back Lila's continued
tenure," was false.  The statement "The Board has decided to back Lila's
continued tenure," was true.  The exact nature of any dissent doesn't need
to be publicized, and really the very fact that there was dissent doesn't
need to be publicized, especially because in what is generally considered
poor governance WMF BoT uses a lot of straw votes to avoid opinions being
recorded transparently  - but one of the earlier statements is true, and
one is false.  They aren't very different statements, and honestly, I do
not understand why the false statement was chosen.

The Board of Trustees needs outside review.  In what should be an
exceptionally transparent movement, they use practices that other
nonprofits that don't have the same values of transparency that we have get
slammed for.

---
Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Craig, I believe it is all free (not purchased), per
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/nonprofits/products/#apps#tab5 ("Google
> Apps
> for Nonprofits")
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Craig Franklin  >
> wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that the Foundation purchases certain technical and
> > apps services (cloud email, for instance) from Google.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 1 March 2016 at 12:15, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I cannot for the life of me imagine what Google sells that the WMF
> would
> > be
> > > interested in buying, so I'm finding your example a bit weird.
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Nick Wilson (Quiddity)]

Craig, I believe it is all free (not purchased), per
https://www.google.com/intl/en/nonprofits/products/#apps#tab5 ("Google Apps
for Nonprofits")

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> My understanding is that the Foundation purchases certain technical and
> apps services (cloud email, for instance) from Google.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 1 March 2016 at 12:15, Risker  wrote:
>
> >
> > I cannot for the life of me imagine what Google sells that the WMF would
> be
> > interested in buying, so I'm finding your example a bit weird.
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

[Kevin Gorman]

Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
cycle.  As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause.  Every
reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
WMF employees.  E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
conversations, and simply listened to their feedback.  In an ideal
situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board alerting
the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the
conversations, which they would have hear.

More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks,
we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the
board is gracious enough to allow the community to suggest board members,
which the board may then choose to accept or reject.  Given the fact that
we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
James can stand in the next 'community board selection.'

Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you
to release multiple times contains no confidential information, and the
fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me.  W/r/t an email
related to the removal of a community selected and trusted trustee, full
transparency seems necessary.  You've said the email contains nothing of
mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth there
- I suspect that at most it contains you making comments to James that
either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't get
that transparency in this situation is necessary. Are you willing to
release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
confidential w/r/t the BoT?  I'm sure James will comment if your redactions
are excessive.  Without any confidential information, all the email is is a
document that shines more light on a situation involving the removal of a
community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
transparent as possible about.


Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear Jimmy,
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that
> lead to a better understanding and coming to terms with each other. I
> am happy to read that you wouldn't, as a person, object to a return of
> James to the board.
>
> However, the FAQ says in the introduction: "The Board has compiled
> this list of answers to many of the most common questions." So this
> FAQ is a statement of the board, also in your name.
>
> Which relates to your very decision to vote for the removal of another
> board member. Why did you support the removal? For a gut feeling
> anticipation that James might misbehave in future? Or for specific
> actions of James in the past, actions that could be defined legally,
> or at least within the frame of the WMF regulations? You know: nulla
> poena sine lege.
>
> I don't want to judge about matters I don't know sufficiently about. I
> don't want to speculate and spread rumors. I don't want to rely on
> leaked documents. I don't want to show disrespect to people who invest
> a lot of time in order to keep the board and the Foundation running.
>
> I just want to know, as a voter, why a board member coming from the
> elections has been removed, and what are the consequences. Because I
> want to know what is the value of my vote.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> PS: Thanks for the quote, Chris; I wonder what "next annual meeting"
> means in our context.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-02-29 16:51 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic :
> > I agree as well.
> > On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales"  wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> >> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other
> members
> >> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that
> led
> >> you
> >> > to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
> >> > non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
> >> vague
> >> > assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up
> with
> >> > lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case
> >> then
> >> > maybe stop talking about it altogether.
> >>
> >> I agree with you completely.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Kevin Smith]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Chris Sherlock 
wrote:

> I'm just going to quote directly from the Grant application here [1]:
>
> > Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media,
> news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant information
> more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an open data engine
> that's completely free of commercial interests. Our new site will be the
> Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one that carries
> the reputation of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> So to reiterate the words that make it hard for the WMF to deny that they
> were pitching for an Internet search engine:
>

I guess I was focused on the grant deliverables, and not the "flavor text"
around it. You are correct that the pitch is in the direction of some kind
of internet search engine, although it does not specifically say that it
would include non-free information sources.


> You can tell me the scope was intended to be only for Wikimedia projects,
> but that isn't what is said in that grant application. That document as it
> stands literally states that it is to be an Internet search engine. No, I
> correct myself. It says it is to be THE Internet's search engine.
>

Clearly there are still aspirations to include non-Wikimedia projects in
the search results. I can't speak for the board, or c-levels. But I can say
that in my work with the Discovery team, we have not been asked to, and
have not had even rough plans to, search non-free information sources.


> So when you say than there is confusion between the internal presentation
> and the official external grant application, I must respectfully disagree
> with you. There is no such confusion. The two parts of the application I
> have quoted cover almost a third of the grant application and I'd argue are
> the key parts of the application.
>

I would argue that the deliverables are THE key part of the application,
but I freely admit that you are correct that the other parts matter. And
are somewhat disturbing.

There has been some handwaving going on from a variety of different parties
> that "oh, it's just a Grant application, these things are very high level
> and vague, it doesn't really matter what we write in it lets just put the
> broadest possible objectives and vision for this thing and we'll deal the
> scope later on after we've been given the grant money".
>
> Others may not think this is not a concern. I do though, and I'm very
> concerned that we are making grant applications and not really disclosing
> our full intentions, and we are not making it clear what are the
> corresponding scope limitations. Before someone objects, it's even worse
> when I have asked about the first challenge that could threaten the project
> and the response [3] is, in part:
>

Most of us on the Discovery team share your concerns about how this grant
was conceived, pitched, received, and (not) publicized. Most of the team
didn't see the grant until you did.

> So basically, 6 months means that by midway through this month,
> we will see all of these deliverables. Could someone please advise
> us how this is proceeding?  I’d imagine that we should at least be
> able to see the dashboard by now, but I’m curious to find out more
> about the research that’s been conducted and the results of the user
> testing performed.

I'm hardly the expert here, but the dashboards have been up for a while[1],
and are continually being expanded and improved. The user tests have been
documented[2]. Upcoming tests are documented in phabricator.

[1] http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discovery/Testing

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meeting in Berlin (was: Executive transition planning)

[Michael Maggs]

Hi Dariusz

Thanks for that.  As you know, WMUK has over the last three years itself 
gone through a lengthy process of governance review, reflection, and 
change and I would be happy to join with Tim in offering my support and 
the benefit of our own experiences, if that would be useful. It will be 
good to take the opportunity to discuss governance and transparency 
issues in Berlin, in addition of course to the public discussions that 
are already going on.


Best regards


Michael


Wikimedia_UK_logo_40px.png

Michael Maggs

Chair, Wikimedia UK



Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

Hi,

Since the whole Board is in heavy overload right now, I'm writing basically
to acknowledge this proposal and thank for it. Since I've been discussing
the WMDE governance with its Board in the past, I think there are
definitely useful learning points, and it is great that you take this
initiative. The major obstacle is timing and bandwidth. Still, we
definitely should discuss governance in Berlin.
29.02.2016 10:19 "Tim Moritz Hector"
napisał(a):


Dear fellow Wikimedians,

I have been closely following the developments of the previous weeks. A lot
of things have been said, concerns and frustration have been raised, hope
has been voiced, and many many questions have been brought up. It’s hard to
keep up with all the voices on all the different digital channels these
days, and hard to find solutions and agreement in an unfacilitated stream.

The first chance for many of us to personally meet, vent, and look ahead
will be the the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. Wikimedia Deutschland is
hosting the event, and welcoming movement affiliates, committees and board
and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation from April 20-24.

The movement is standing at a crossroad, but I am confident we can find the
best path if we work together. Wikimedia Deutschland has gone through
turbulent times in the past as well, and we would like to offer our
experience and full support as host and facilitator of an essential part of
this process. With your participation and contribution, Wikimedia
Conference can be a platform for exchange and progress.

Let us use this opportunity to jointly figure out how we want to move
forward as a network of partners. The conference is the ideal platform to
discuss and define next steps to find answers to questions like: How do we
imagine a movement striving for free knowledge and what structure and
framework best serve these needs? How do the WMF and affiliates define
their role and responsibilities on a global and local level? How shall an
revamped search process for a new executive leadership of the WMF look
like, and what are the main qualifications new candidates should bring? How
will the strategy process for the WMF evolve and how can affiliates
contribute? How do we involve our stakeholders from within and outside of
the movement in this process? How do we manage to look ahead rather than
repeating the old narratives?  How do we create consensus on all these
questions?

In light of the current situation, we would like to dedicate a whole
conference track to these issues. Of course, the initial conference topics
of impact and capacity building are still important and will be covered as
well.

We have set up a page on meta and encourage you to share your questions,
ideas, and concerns[1]. We intend to work closely with WMF and affiliate
representatives in the coming eight weeks and create the program along
their input.

Looking forward to seeing you in Berlin in April,
Tim Moritz Hector

[1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Program_Design_Process/Track
:
How to move forward

--
Tim Moritz Hector
Chair of the Board

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | D-10963 Berlin
http://www.wikimedia.de
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meeting in Berlin (was: Executive transition planning)

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Hi,

Since the whole Board is in heavy overload right now, I'm writing basically
to acknowledge this proposal and thank for it. Since I've been discussing
the WMDE governance with its Board in the past, I think there are
definitely useful learning points, and it is great that you take this
initiative. The major obstacle is timing and bandwidth. Still, we
definitely should discuss governance in Berlin.
29.02.2016 10:19 "Tim Moritz Hector" 
napisał(a):

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> I have been closely following the developments of the previous weeks. A lot
> of things have been said, concerns and frustration have been raised, hope
> has been voiced, and many many questions have been brought up. It’s hard to
> keep up with all the voices on all the different digital channels these
> days, and hard to find solutions and agreement in an unfacilitated stream.
>
> The first chance for many of us to personally meet, vent, and look ahead
> will be the the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. Wikimedia Deutschland is
> hosting the event, and welcoming movement affiliates, committees and board
> and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation from April 20-24.
>
> The movement is standing at a crossroad, but I am confident we can find the
> best path if we work together. Wikimedia Deutschland has gone through
> turbulent times in the past as well, and we would like to offer our
> experience and full support as host and facilitator of an essential part of
> this process. With your participation and contribution, Wikimedia
> Conference can be a platform for exchange and progress.
>
> Let us use this opportunity to jointly figure out how we want to move
> forward as a network of partners. The conference is the ideal platform to
> discuss and define next steps to find answers to questions like: How do we
> imagine a movement striving for free knowledge and what structure and
> framework best serve these needs? How do the WMF and affiliates define
> their role and responsibilities on a global and local level? How shall an
> revamped search process for a new executive leadership of the WMF look
> like, and what are the main qualifications new candidates should bring? How
> will the strategy process for the WMF evolve and how can affiliates
> contribute? How do we involve our stakeholders from within and outside of
> the movement in this process? How do we manage to look ahead rather than
> repeating the old narratives?  How do we create consensus on all these
> questions?
>
> In light of the current situation, we would like to dedicate a whole
> conference track to these issues. Of course, the initial conference topics
> of impact and capacity building are still important and will be covered as
> well.
>
> We have set up a page on meta and encourage you to share your questions,
> ideas, and concerns[1]. We intend to work closely with WMF and affiliate
> representatives in the coming eight weeks and create the program along
> their input.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you in Berlin in April,
> Tim Moritz Hector
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Program_Design_Process/Track
> :
> How to move forward
>
> --
> Tim Moritz Hector
> Chair of the Board
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | D-10963 Berlin
> http://www.wikimedia.de
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] English Wikipedia India / Project WIN planning

[Tito Dutta]

Earlier I told you about this discussion. Now we'll move ahead. You may
revisit the thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives
These are the tasks for now:

   1. Barnstar, noticeboard barnstar, regular recognition to encourage
   editors, some brainstorming need to be done for experienced/senior
   Wikipedians (as User:Dharmadhyaksha
    pointed out).
   Barnstar name has been suggested ""WikiProject India: Star of the month" or
   "WikiProject India: Hall of fame" by User:Yash!
   
   2. WP:INCOTM  restarting.
   3. Working on improving quality of vital articles, important articles;
   4. Add an initiative to identify largely unsourced or poorly sourced
   higher traffic articles (> 100 views avg per day) in this and directly
   related project spaces (Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism/Sikhism/etc) (as
   suggested by User:Ms Sarah Welch
   )
   5. Working on edit-a-thons;
   6. Trying to involve more admins/experienced editors, as User:Vin09
    mentioned "*regular
   India-article related admins*".
   7. Creating tool page, resource page, uploading quality images needed
   for/to improve edit-a-thons (see the post of User:Ms Sarah Welch
    for more details).
   8. meta:100wikidays 
   promotion;
   9. Starting a WikiProject India monthly newsletter, as suggested by
   User:Yash! 




On 19 February 2016 at 23:04, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> ​Hi WikiFriends,
> *We need your suggestions and feedback. *
>
> We are planning a few initiatives for WikiProject India (English
> Wikipedia). For a long time we have been feeling:
>
>- *On one hand:* WikiProject India is one of the largest projects in
>Wikimedia
>- *On the other hand: *We sometimes face it difficult to organize
>simple co-ordination projects.
>
> We are planning a few initiatives, *please see*:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives
>
> If you have a look at this, you'll clearly understand that we are not
> planning anything big at this moment.
>
> Please share you suggestions.
>
> PS. The main project page is here on Meta Wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_India_Nurturing and here on
> English Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Project_WIN
>
> Regards.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[David Emrany]

Dear Coren

I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
(16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
on 1 June 2014.

I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
through better technology.

I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
privately.

[1] 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use=revision=98138=90463

BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
with "absolute certainty".

Dave

On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
>> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
>> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
>> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
>
> I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
> things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:
>
> (a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
> abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
> Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.
>
> (b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of abuse
> were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
> started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
> had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue initiative
> from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been all
> Sue.
>
> (c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
> Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
> remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
> the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
> but they always tried their best.
>
> So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has no
> relationship with reality.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Anders Wennersten]

Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:

The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
of the movement are being created daily.


We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate 
that your reality is everyones reality


In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia 
the last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary  
There have been several articled in our main media reporting both with 
good insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a 
continuous strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant 
change from School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how 
to make best use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the 
need to be observant of sources being used


The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then 
300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto 
WIkidata. And  also our community is working better then ever and seeing 
regularly new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)


So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF 
is not reported or known her in our media


Anders






On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

Hi David,

you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
"consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.

However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
https://xkcd.com/1217/

I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
constitutes.

When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
goes.

Cheers,
Micru


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-03-01 11:01, David Emrany wrote:


" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
DEVICES .. " [2]

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm

[2] 
http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf


David


Which likely means you are avoiding the list ban.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

David,

When I refer to the community I assume already that it has an intrinsic
imperfect representation and unclear boundaries, as it is characteristic to
open systems.

Given these blurry boundaries, at what point of the society does the asylum
begin or end? It is not enough with just "cleaning
of the stables" as you say, because the horses come and go freely and it is
an open question which degree of cleanliness they are more comfortable with.

You mention "fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency", but perhaps
they are also form part of the downsides of having an open community, and
every time it is an opportunity to do things better. There will be always
new enemies, and with an open attitude there will be also new friends.

The document you link seems to support "net neutrality", that concept that
sometimes we support, and sometimes we don't...

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:01 AM, David Emrany 
wrote:

> Dear David
>
> I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
> is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
> Africa are not properly represented here.
>
> The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
> prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
> needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
> of the stables, but the task was beyond her.
>
> The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
> rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
> of the movement are being created daily.
>
> To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
> critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
> banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
> including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]
>
> " .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
> speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
> India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
> DEVICES .. " [2]
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm
>
> [2]
> http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf
>
> David
>
> On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
> > "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of
> administrators".
>
> > Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
> > suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
> > find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
> > dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
> > responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
> >
> > However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors"
> and I
> > consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site.
> It
> > is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
> > it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
> > take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
> > https://xkcd.com/1217/
> >
> > I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
> > cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
> > themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with
> the
> > professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust
> to
> > take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what
> it
> > constitutes.
> >
> > When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like
> WOOF,
> > or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
> > work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
> > movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
> > goes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.

I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:

(a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.

(b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of abuse
were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue initiative
from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been all
Sue.

(c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
but they always tried their best.

So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has no
relationship with reality.

-- Coren / Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that
lead to a better understanding and coming to terms with each other. I
am happy to read that you wouldn't, as a person, object to a return of
James to the board.

However, the FAQ says in the introduction: "The Board has compiled
this list of answers to many of the most common questions." So this
FAQ is a statement of the board, also in your name.

Which relates to your very decision to vote for the removal of another
board member. Why did you support the removal? For a gut feeling
anticipation that James might misbehave in future? Or for specific
actions of James in the past, actions that could be defined legally,
or at least within the frame of the WMF regulations? You know: nulla
poena sine lege.

I don't want to judge about matters I don't know sufficiently about. I
don't want to speculate and spread rumors. I don't want to rely on
leaked documents. I don't want to show disrespect to people who invest
a lot of time in order to keep the board and the Foundation running.

I just want to know, as a voter, why a board member coming from the
elections has been removed, and what are the consequences. Because I
want to know what is the value of my vote.

Kind regards
Ziko


PS: Thanks for the quote, Chris; I wonder what "next annual meeting"
means in our context.








2016-02-29 16:51 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic :
> I agree as well.
> On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales"  wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
>> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
>> you
>> > to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
>> > non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
>> vague
>> > assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
>> > lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case
>> then
>> > maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>>
>> I agree with you completely.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Dear David

I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
Africa are not properly represented here.

The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
of the stables, but the task was beyond her.

The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
of the movement are being created daily.

To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]

" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
DEVICES .. " [2]

[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm

[2] http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf

David

On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
> "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".

> Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
> suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
> find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
> dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
> responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
>
> However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
> consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
> is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
> it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
> take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
> https://xkcd.com/1217/
>
> I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
> cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
> themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
> professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
> take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
> constitutes.
>
> When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
> or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
> work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
> movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
> goes.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi David,

you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
"consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.

However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
https://xkcd.com/1217/

I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
constitutes.

When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
goes.

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:58 AM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily
> instead of driving them away.
>
> In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker
> says
> "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to
> keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors
> from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a
> system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]
>
> English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established
> syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their
> self-protecting policies.  A large number of these persons are paid
> editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to
> positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly
> misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of
> Interest.
>
> I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal
> responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly)
> anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.
>
> I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified
> identities for its users and administrators across all its projects,
> and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving
> so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of
> its projects, including through paid editing.
>
> David
>
> [1]
> http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-Big-Problem-CHART/articleshow/26238463.cms
>
> On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> > James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but
> it
> > would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
> > voluntarily...
> > There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that
> it
> > cannot be done.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> >> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying
> to
> >> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind
> Elance
> >> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have
> been
> >> a
> >> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
> >> foundation support to move forwards.
> >>
> >> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
> >> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets
> of
> >> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If
> >> others
> >> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very
> >> early
> >> stages from what I understand.
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Heilman
> >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >>
> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > ___
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[David Emrany]

I was subliminally aware of your assist in Nemo's protest to Lila.

What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.

1) WIKI-PR (250 sock accounts)
2) Orange Moody(350+ accounts)
3) DeCoetzee
4) Wifione
5) Cuntgate - Eric Corbett
6) Gamergate

How long will WMF/BoT keep denying that there are persons in high
positions of trust (remember Essjay) who are misusing Wikipedia for
personal profit and in ways detrimental to the Terms of Use. Surely it
would be the simplest thing for WMF to insist on verification of WMF
user accounts, to ensure that minors cannot edit, or else to ensure
that anonymous editors must take responsibility for defamatory/biased
content..

David

On 3/1/16, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 2016-02-29 23:19 GMT-08:00 David Emrany :
>
>> so reading your email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the
>> Stanton Foundation fiasco ? [1]
>>
>> "The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the
>> future, any grants that are not unrestricted will receive a special
>> high level of scrutiny before being accepted."
>> ..
>> "The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for
>> staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that
>> staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community
>> policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a
>> simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014."
>
> I'm not sure if there's a question for me here? I wasn't involved in
> the Belfer project until the postmortem. The ED transition happened
> shortly thereafter. Regardless of whether it came up in that context
> (I don't know for sure, but I doubt it), the follow-up was lost in the
> shuffle. Nemo pointed that out a few months later, and Lila's final
> response on the issue is here:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-March/077339.html
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Erik Moeller]

2016-02-29 23:19 GMT-08:00 David Emrany :

> so reading your email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the
> Stanton Foundation fiasco ? [1]
>
> "The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the
> future, any grants that are not unrestricted will receive a special
> high level of scrutiny before being accepted."
> ..
> "The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for
> staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that
> staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community
> policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a
> simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014."

I'm not sure if there's a question for me here? I wasn't involved in
the Belfer project until the postmortem. The ED transition happened
shortly thereafter. Regardless of whether it came up in that context
(I don't know for sure, but I doubt it), the follow-up was lost in the
shuffle. Nemo pointed that out a few months later, and Lila's final
response on the issue is here:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-March/077339.html

Erik

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

[Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Brion Vibber]

On Monday, February 29, 2016, Erik Moeller > wrote:
>
> The
> Apple dictionary integration Brion mentions in [4] is an exception to
> the rule; contrary to Brion's recollection it actually predates even
> Sue Gardner and, as far as I know, was not announced at the time.


Double checking my email archives I can confirm it was 2006 not 2008, yes.
(That was the year before we hired Sue, and a time when we had no
professional business development people, just informal connections made
via board or the acting ED at the time.) The Apple deal was indeed the
exception that confirmed our commitment to the rule.

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