Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-21 13:53 GMT-07:00 Mark A. Hershberger :
> We've since held three meetings[3][4][5] and have planned two more.
> During the meeting planned for about six weeks from now[6], we intend
> to have a format that allows us to respond to questions or concerns from
> the larger community.

This is very encouraging, Mark, thanks for the summary! It sounds like
there's already quite a bit of traction for creating a MediaWiki
focused organization. I'll try to join the upcoming meetings and
provide input/help where I can. Is there an active asynchronous
conversation space about this somewhere (talk page, listserv, forum,
whatever)? If not, should we use
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group
for ongoing conversation about this?

Thanks,
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

[Erik Moeller]

2016-03-24 3:35 GMT-07:00 Andre Engels :

>> Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
>> Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
>> spin-off this new organization ?.

> That's incorrect, putting something in the public domain does not
> remove trademark rights.

Indeed, acknowledging that it did not need to enforce strong
copyrights on the logos to protect the trademarks, WMF released all
its remaining non-free logos under CC-BY-SA in October 2014:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/

"MediaWiki" is an internationally registered trademark, as you can
verify e.g., through http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who runs the Wikimedia Shop ?

[Pine W]

Hi Seddon,

Thanks for this summary of the issues.

Streamlining and standardizing trademark agreements with affiliates for
branded merch production would be great.

Even supposing that the US affiliates went to the trouble of opening a
collective merch store, the production and shipping costs for small batches
of high quality apparel are so high that I doubt that there would be a good
business case for us to try to turn a store into a source of revenue that
earns much more than it costs to operate. That said, it seems to me that it
should be OK for affiliates like WMFR to run merch stores and generate
income from them that exceeds cost recovery so long as the proceeds are
used by the affiliates in a manner that's compatible with the affiliate and
Wikimedia missions.

Pine

On Mar 23, 2016 17:28, "Joseph Seddon"  wrote:
>
> Hey John et. al
>
> Apologies for the delaying in responding to the last few emails. I want to
> try and cover a couple of the points that been raised.
>
> I'll first start with the history. I am very much aware of the background
> surrounding merchandise, in particular the chapters and the changes in the
> chapter agreements back in 2009 that essentially stopped all that. At the
> time I was on the board of Wikimedia UK and I very much remember the
> frustrations that surrounded the changes. In terms of who has and who
> hasn't run commercial stores I am not going to even attempt to summarise
> that here and I honestly don't think people rehashing the particular
> individual histories of trademark agreements of the last half a decade for
> how ever many affiliates have had them. We all have far more interesting
> and worthwhile things to talk about in the movement.
>
> So here's to looking forward and where we can do things better:
>
> Where no exchange of money is involved, the Trademark policy already does
a
> good job of allowing affiliates or members of the community to print or
> make one-off merchandise to give away at the events they run, or to
members
> of their organisations.
>
> Where we could do probably do better is where the exchange of money is
only
> for the specific purpose of cost recovery. The sort of thing that Pine was
> talking about in relation to Wikiconference USA. Merchandise isn't cheap
> and where possible it makes sense to be able to offset the cost. It's
> probably an area we should strive to make easier, more consistent and less
> of a struggle for affiliates and where we could probably make the biggest
> impact in improving the ability of affiliates to produce small runs of
cool
> stuff.
>
> The operating of stores by affiliates is one that I think there is a lot
of
> potential in. The WMF store, in its very focused scope, works well. But
> there are a lot of areas where we could do better. Multilingual store and
> checkpoint support is lacking, international shipping is expensive,
support
> for local currency should be better and an ability to print on demand is
an
> area that needs work. I think that this could be improved through other
> stores. It just needs to be done right and a good framework set out for
> chapters to do this work. I and others will need to time work out what
that
> will be.
>
> This whole topic was something that was one of the first that was
discussed
> about areas that at as department we could do better in terms of working
> with the community in. There is a lot of good will from those above meand
I
> think over time we will see some good changes here. It's not the only area
> I am working on and we are only 6-7 weeks into me being on board but I
will
> get to it.
>
> I am going to be in Berlin for the Wikimedia Conference and I think it
> would be a good place to start conversations about how we can move forward
> in an area that realistically should not be controversial in any way but
> that should be done well.
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sam Klein 
> > wrote:
> > >..
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <
jay...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> IIRC, there were several affiliates that were previously running a
> > >> store, and naturally supporting the most relevant languages of their
> > >> community.  They were effectively shutdown, and localisation lost due
> > >> to centralisation to the WMF.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is this true?  Please record any actual examples on:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks
> >
> > I dont have any actual examples, only possibly faulty memories of
> > events that mostly affected other affiliates.
> >
> > As I recall, and apologies in advance for my memories fading or being
> > faulty, the French, Italian and German chapters were running what
> > could be considered a store before the WMF's "Chapters Agreement"
> > and/or "Fundraising Agreements" of 2009/2010 were 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Internship opening: product management at WMDE

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Forwarding info about an opportunity to intern in product management with
> Wikidata and the good people at Wikimedia Deutschland.
>
> Pine


Thanks for spreading the word, Pine!

I think it's worth drawing attention to the first bullet point in the role
description:

* [...] enrolled as a Bachelor or Master student at a German university or
college or qualified for working in Germany as an ERASMUS program student.

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Internship opening: product management at WMDE

[Pine W]

Forwarding info about an opportunity to intern in product management with
Wikidata and the good people at Wikimedia Deutschland.

Pine
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Lydia Pintscher" 
Date: Mar 24, 2016 07:24
Subject: [Wikidata] internship opening: product management at WMDE
To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:

Hey folks :)

I am looking for someone to support me me with my product management work
at WMDE as an intern. If you'd love to work with me and the rest of the
team, love Wikidata and want to learn, this might be the thing for you.
More details are here:
https://wikimedia.de/wiki/Internship_Product_Management


Cheers
Lydia
-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

___
Wikidata mailing list
wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So what are you saying? It is ok for people to do dastardly things and
abuse Commons and it is even worse when people at Commons use the
environment they know, the Internet, to do some research and expose what
they find?

Really? And I must be impressed when Mr Kolbe asks attention for it??
Because what! It a Dutch proverb the best sailors are ashore. The same can
be said by Mr Kolbe who is proficient in telling other people what to do
and why he objects. That is his prerogative as it is mine to be
underwhelmed.

Be serious. When issues arise, we may work towards an understanding and a
solution and sometimes hands get dirty. I will always support people who
actually make a meaningful difference over people who cannot be faulted.
Mistakes are made and when that is a problem go elsewhere. When there is a
meaningful discussion anything is on the cards. So far this is not one.
Thanks,
   GerarddM

On 24 March 2016 at 09:04, David Emrany  wrote:

> Dear Gerard
>
> Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
> group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
> 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
> enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
>
> IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
> we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
> Kolbe has linked to
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en
>
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640
>
> On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> >
> > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> as
> > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> >
> > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> but
> > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Adele
> >>
> >> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> >> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >>
> >> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> >> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> >> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >>
> >> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> >> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> >> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >>
> >> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> >> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >>
> >> [2]
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >>
> >> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> >> > Hi Teles,
> >> >
> >> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> >> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> >> >
> >> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
> >> > requiring
> >> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
> impacted
> >> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
> >> > editing
> >> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access
> from
> >> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> >> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
> Wikipedia.
> >> >
> >> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
> upload
> >> of
> >> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> >> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
> good
> >> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> >> challenge
> >> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers
> of a
> >> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
> >> > upload
> >> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> >> (like
> >> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Fæ]

After a chat with someone more familiar with Jimmy Wales' user talk
page than myself (I don't regularly follow it, as Jimmy does not grant
me free speech there), I think this may be the link,[1] but we agree
it's impossible to tell for sure as it all seems too obscure and
tangential; quote:"... I continue to make the case to the board that
greater transparency is desirable with regard to the reasons for
James' removal."

None of the discussion seems to be anything that reads as much more
than hearsay with plausibly deniability, and we are left hanging on a
promise of something eventually where all the other trustees, not
Jimmy, must be at fault for dragging their feet and failing to be
transparent about an email that Jimmy wrote to James, that nobody else
could have any legal or ethical reason to think they had a right to
veto publishing; considering it has already been suggested that
anything that might give the board of trustees a legal problem could
be redacted in a minimal fashion.

It's a shame that WMF trustees are not subject to the type of legal
constraints which most European charities operate under, forcing the
organization to release records given a subject access request within
a limited time... unless they sadly have an unexpected "administrative
error" and delete the important/embarrassing records they should have
archived.

It's not quite reached a month since publication was first requested
and agreed to by James to avoid any issue with respecting
confidentiality,[2] so readers of this list may have unrealistic
expectations that this will be clarified in a timely way.

1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=711235706=711235176
2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html

Fae

On 23 March 2016 at 23:32, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
> your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>>
>> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>>
>> Diff, please.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Affiliate-selected Board seats voting started

[Laurentius]

Dear all,
voting for the affiliate-selected board seats is starting today, and
will end on May 8 (results will be announced shortly after that).

Ten people nominated - which is more than in any previous round - and
all nominations got an endorsement. Therefore, we have ten candidates
running:
* Christophe Henner (schiste)
* Jan Ainali (Ainali)
* Kunal Mehta (Legoktm)
* Leigh Thelmadatter (Thelmadatter)
* Lodewijk Gelauff (Effeietsanders)
* Maarten Deneckere (MADe)
* Nataliia Tymkiv (antanana)
* Osmar Valdebenito (B1mbo)
* Siska Doviana (Siska.Doviana)
* Susanna Mkrtchyan (SusikMkr)

For the nomination statements, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations

While only chapters and thematic organizations are eligible to vote,
anyone is encouraged to ask questions, either to all the candidates:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions
or to specific candidates in the talk page of their nomination.

Chris Keating
Lorenzo Losa
Lane Rasberry
- election facilitators



___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Vi to]

It's ordinary countervandalism, honestly I cannot find anything
questionable but maybe a missed something.

Vito

2016-03-24 9:04 GMT+01:00 David Emrany :

> Dear Gerard
>
> Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
> group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
> 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
> enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
>
> IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
> we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
> Kolbe has linked to
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en
>
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640
>
> On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> >
> > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> as
> > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> >
> > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> but
> > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Adele
> >>
> >> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> >> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >>
> >> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> >> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> >> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >>
> >> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> >> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> >> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >>
> >> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> >> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >>
> >> [2]
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >>
> >> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> >> > Hi Teles,
> >> >
> >> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> >> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> >> >
> >> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
> >> > requiring
> >> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
> impacted
> >> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
> >> > editing
> >> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access
> from
> >> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> >> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
> Wikipedia.
> >> >
> >> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
> upload
> >> of
> >> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> >> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
> good
> >> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> >> challenge
> >> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers
> of a
> >> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
> >> > upload
> >> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> >> (like
> >> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or
> a
> >> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become
> aware
> >> of
> >> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> >> Community
> >> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
> >> > removed.
> >> >
> >> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> >> would
> >> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> >> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
> >> > had
> >> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> >> > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> >> zero
> >> > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> >> issue.
> >> > As of December 2015, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

[Andre Engels]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
> Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
> spin-off this new organization ?.

That's incorrect, putting something in the public domain does not
remove trademark rights. In fact, trademark rights are often on names,
which are almost without exception public domain copyrightwise.

> Am I  correct in assuming the Mediawiki software  can be forked by
> anybody interested along with attribution ?

Attribution only is not enough, it is licensed under GPL, which means
that a fork will also have to be under the same license. The essence
of the license is the same as that of the CC-BY-SA that Wikipedia is
under, the differences mostly have to do with technical points because
of the different way in which computer programs are used compared to
texts or artwork.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[David Emrany]

Dear Gerard

Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].

IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
Kolbe has linked to

Regards

Dave

[1]  
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en

[2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640

On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
>
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
>
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
>
>> Hi Adele
>>
>> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
>> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
>>
>> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
>> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
>> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
>>
>> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
>> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
>> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
>>
>> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
>> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>>
>> [2]
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
>>
>> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
>> > Hi Teles,
>> >
>> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
>> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
>> >
>> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
>> > requiring
>> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
>> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
>> > editing
>> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
>> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
>> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
>> >
>> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
>> of
>> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
>> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
>> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
>> challenge
>> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
>> >
>> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
>> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
>> > upload
>> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
>> (like
>> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
>> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
>> of
>> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
>> Community
>> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
>> > removed.
>> >
>> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
>> would
>> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
>> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
>> > had
>> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
>> > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
>> zero
>> > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
>> issue.
>> > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
>> >
>> > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
>> > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
>> > resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
>> > examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
>> > discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

[David Emrany]

Hi Eloquence

Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
spin-off this new organization ?.

Am I  correct in assuming the Mediawiki software  can be forked by
anybody interested along with attribution ?

Regards

Dave

[1]  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg

On 3/18/16, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> == Potential test case: MediaWiki Foundation ==
>
> A "MediaWiki Foundation" [5] has been proposed a few times and I
> suspect continues to have some currency within WMF. This org would not
> be focused on all WMF-related development work, but specifically on
> MediaWiki as software that has value to third parties. Its mission
> could include hosting services as earned income (and potentially as an
> extension of the Wikimedia movement’s mission).
>

___
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,