Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The most important thing about the board and the WMF is that they enable
what we do. The dependence on them delivering services that are of a high
quality is something they deliver. At the same time there is a coterie of
"Wikipedians" that want to remake the WMF in their own image. They have
proven not to be interested in our projects really. They have been
challenged to consider practical things that will deliver much better
quality for Wikipedia but it proved not to be what they are interested in.

Arguably there is a crisis. But the crisis has less to do with the WMF than
with some in the community. They call themselves the community. IMHO they
are malcontents; they have no agenda but single issues that will not help
us achieve what the WMF is about.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 1 May 2016 at 23:36, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has broken
> down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
> Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Crisis_of_confidence
> ___
> 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 New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

[Oliver Keyes]

It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the technical/legal
overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.

One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is
not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely
being classifiable as a technology.

On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann  wrote:

> > It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
> > knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
>
> Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is
> exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly
> qualified (or experienced) in law.
>
> Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's
> privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team
> have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not
> cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would
> you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies
> and their usage on Wikimedia.
>
> 1. Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
> "en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies
> (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
>
> 2. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
> cookie policy include
> (i)  Javascript code, or
> (ii)  Flash objects
>
> 3. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
> client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting
> extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not
> being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
>
> 4. Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
> juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive
> knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its
> internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely
> impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn
> crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably
> still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also
> threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia
> via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several
> some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously'
> related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
>
> Toby
>
> [ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but
> the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in
> 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of
> a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with
> highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account).
> Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see
> improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we
> tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve
> the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
>
> [ref#2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder=historysubmit=revision=194440022=194439438
>
> On 5/2/16, James Alexander >
> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
> trillium2...@yandex.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
> >> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and
> IT
> >> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
> >>
> >
> > I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused
> about
> > why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is, essentially,
> a
> > legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but
> > similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public
> > information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy
> > docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for
> as
> > long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was
> asked
> > to help put it up for them).
> >
> > It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
> > knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
> > Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily
> > ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws
> > about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department
> > for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and
> the
> > privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within
> > their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department
> (though
> > everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises the
> > org as a whole made).
> >
> > James Alexander
> > Manager
> > Trust & Safety
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

[Toby Dollmann]

> It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
> knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.

Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is
exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly
qualified (or experienced) in law.

Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's
privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team
have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not
cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would
you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies
and their usage on Wikimedia.

1. Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies
(broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.

2. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include
(i)  Javascript code, or
(ii)  Flash objects

3. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting
extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not
being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.

4. Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive
knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its
internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely
impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn
crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably
still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also
threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia
via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several
some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously'
related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.

Toby

[ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but
the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in
30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of
a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with
highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account).
Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see
improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we
tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve
the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"

[ref#2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder=historysubmit=revision=194440022=194439438

On 5/2/16, James Alexander  wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage 
> wrote:
>
>> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
>> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT
>> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
>>
>
> I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused about
> why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is, essentially, a
> legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but
> similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public
> information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy
> docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for as
> long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was asked
> to help put it up for them).
>
> It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
> knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
> Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily
> ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws
> about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department
> for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and the
> privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within
> their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department (though
> everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises the
> org as a whole made).
>
> James Alexander
> Manager
> Trust & Safety
> 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 mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliate-selected Board seats voting started

[Benjamin Lees]

This is still going on, right?  The latest question on the questions
page has only gotten one answer in a month. :-(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Top_board_responsibilities.3F

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Laurentius  wrote:
> 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, 
> 

___
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 New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

[Vi to]

Edits didn't affect the content of the policy actually. Also a cookie
policy is essentially a legal stuff, I'd be surprised to *don't *see the
legal team editing it.

As a "sockpuppet investigator" I never rely upon cookies, I prefer
fingerprints and social security numbers.

Vito

2016-05-01 23:40 GMT+02:00 Trillium Corsage :

> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT
> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?
>
> Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking
> up on this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in
> layman's terms?
>
> Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of
> editors and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if
> it is, on editors and readers?
>
> Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about?
>
> Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the
> anonymous administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the
> non-public information of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators"
> and so forth?
>
> Here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement=historysubmit=revision=105722=104960
> .
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
> ___
> 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] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

[Trillium Corsage]

I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed 
kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to 
edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?

Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking up on 
this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in layman's terms?

Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of editors 
and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if it is, on 
editors and readers?

Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about?

Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the anonymous 
administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the non-public information 
of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators" and so forth?

Here: 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement=historysubmit=revision=105722=104960.

Trillium Corsage 

___
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 New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

[Oliver Keyes]

Honestly this is kind of a bewildering set of hypotheticals to me.

You worry wikimedia is gathering new data and maybe selling it to marketers
and maybe releasing it to the community, or not, or some of them, or all of
them, based on:

An edit titled 'fixed two errors in cookie names' which...well, fixed two
errors in cookie names.[0] that's all the revision appears to contain.

Legal editing the cookie statement seems pretty usual to me, and the edit
(self-evidently) had nothing to do with changes to what is gathered. It was
copyediting.

There are a lot of things the Foundation does it could communicate better,
but legal tends to do a pretty good job: this edit is really evidence of
that since it's senior counsel taking time to make very very sure they are
reporting to our users precisely what is going on. If the WMF were to start
selling a reading list to Facebook, I'm pretty sure there'd be an
announcement, and I'm absolutely certain the policy change would need to
consist of a bit more than two typo corrections.

[0]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement=revision=105722=104960

On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Trillium Corsage  wrote:

> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT
> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?
>
> Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking
> up on this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in
> layman's terms?
>
> Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of
> editors and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if
> it is, on editors and readers?
>
> Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about?
>
> Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the
> anonymous administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the
> non-public information of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators"
> and so forth?
>
> Here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement=historysubmit=revision=105722=104960
> .
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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 New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

[James Alexander]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage 
wrote:

> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT
> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
>

I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused about
why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is, essentially, a
legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different but
similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public
information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy
docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for as
long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team was asked
to help put it up for them).

It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily
ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws
about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department
for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and the
privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays within
their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department (though
everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the promises the
org as a whole made).

James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
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] Crisis of Confidence

[Rogol Domedonfors]

It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has broken
down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Crisis_of_confidence
___
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] WMIL General Assembly meeting and Board elections

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Dear all,

Today, 1.5.16, Wikimedia Israel (WMIL) held a general assembly meeting,
during which the members held the elections for members of the Board of
WMIL.

The results of the elections are as follows:

Itzik Edri,(reelected)
Deror Lin, (reelected)
Ido Ivri, (reelected)
Hana Yariv (reelected)
Dana Dekel

Audit committee: Oved Cohen (reelected).

The new Board then proceeded to reelect Itzik Edri to Chairperson, and to
elect Ido Ivri as Board Secretary.

In addition, the board will re-approach the two external board members,
Prof. Sheizaf Rafaeli and Prof. Karine Nahon, and Adi Zamir to the audit
committee, to stay with the board for another year and keep providing their
excellent mentorship and advice.

We would like to take this opportunity and extend our many thanks to Yan
Nasonov, the departing Board Member, for his long and good service to WMIL
and its community.


Cheers,
Itzik
___
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] wikinews has a NPOV policy derived from wikipedia, mamamia ...

[David Gerard]

For comparison: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

the twitter version: "Wikinews is half as active as Citizendium."


- d.



On 1 May 2016 at 17:45, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:42 PM, rupert THURNER 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hi jimmy,
>>>
>>> i asked on the facebook group wikipeda weekly if joe/ed could publish
>>> an upcoming blog post on wikinews. joe sutherland mentioned ".. I
>>> simply cannot get my head around its attitude to news coverage". which
>>> i find frightening. an editor for 10 years, tens of thousands
>>> contributions, thousands of pages created, degree in journalism,
>>> dissertation about news on wikipedia, administrator.[1]
>>>
>>> jimmy, as wikinews refers an old mail of you from 2003 as the holy
>>> grail of NPOV, could you please clarify once and for all that your
>>> NPOV statemant you sent to wikien-l was valid for wikipedia. and not
>>> for wikisource, wikiquote, wikinews. best on the wikinews talk page
>>> concerning NPOV [2][4]. i understand of course that certain publishing
>>> standards might apply - but NPOV, and "sourced" in the sense of
>>> published somewhere else cannot be amongst them [3].
>>>
>>> just as a note, i hate that the blog [5] opens 20 times slower than
>>> wikinews on my mobile phone,
>>
>> The blog is hosted by Automattic (known for Wordpress.com) in the same
>> environment as high traffic sites like time.com or fivethirtyeight.com.
>> You can file technical issues on Phabricator:
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/328/ or contact the blog
>> team (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines ).
>>
>> that it is not in different languages,
>>>
>> It does support multilingual posts, e.g.
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/18/wikimedia-server-switch/ is available
>> in 23 languages.
>
> asaf and others were so kind to point me to the statistics of
> wikinews, only SIX persons contributing. this a nice private wiki now
> - nobody would notice if it is set read only :)
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/SummaryEN.htm
>
> still i think it benefits the movements software if you as WMF
> communications team eat our own dogfood and publish on mediawiki.
> wikinews might fit nicely as its target of publishing original texts
> is closest - but anyway wiknews would need a policy change and the
> bureaucrat(s) changed to allow such kinds of texts. if this policy
> change revives its contributor base good. if not i'd agree with asaf
> and others to just let it formally die, as it is already de facto
> dead.
>
>>> that i do not have the "usual mediawiki features". i hate that
>>> signpost [7] cannot be read on mobiles because of formatting. i hate
>>> the glam newsletter [6] for the same reason, despite beeig again on a
>>> different wiki, no "read in different languages". which is the main
>>> reason i write this mail ... and asked joe why not using wikinews. and
>>> i hate that wikinews does not use mediawiki features to properly
>>> classify what quality an article has, e.g. "blog", "npov", etc.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Foxj=en.wikipedia.org
>>> [2]
>>> https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#raphael_honigstein_and_outreach_blog_on_wikinews.3F
>>> [3] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Pillars_of_Wikinews_writing
>>> [4]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html
>>> [5] blog:
>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/22/ted-wikimedia-collaboration/
>>> [6] glam newletter: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
>>> [7] signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
>
> ___
> 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] wikinews has a NPOV policy derived from wikipedia, mamamia ...

[rupert THURNER]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:42 PM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
>> hi jimmy,
>>
>> i asked on the facebook group wikipeda weekly if joe/ed could publish
>> an upcoming blog post on wikinews. joe sutherland mentioned ".. I
>> simply cannot get my head around its attitude to news coverage". which
>> i find frightening. an editor for 10 years, tens of thousands
>> contributions, thousands of pages created, degree in journalism,
>> dissertation about news on wikipedia, administrator.[1]
>>
>> jimmy, as wikinews refers an old mail of you from 2003 as the holy
>> grail of NPOV, could you please clarify once and for all that your
>> NPOV statemant you sent to wikien-l was valid for wikipedia. and not
>> for wikisource, wikiquote, wikinews. best on the wikinews talk page
>> concerning NPOV [2][4]. i understand of course that certain publishing
>> standards might apply - but NPOV, and "sourced" in the sense of
>> published somewhere else cannot be amongst them [3].
>>
>> just as a note, i hate that the blog [5] opens 20 times slower than
>> wikinews on my mobile phone,
>
> The blog is hosted by Automattic (known for Wordpress.com) in the same
> environment as high traffic sites like time.com or fivethirtyeight.com.
> You can file technical issues on Phabricator:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/328/ or contact the blog
> team (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines ).
>
> that it is not in different languages,
>>
> It does support multilingual posts, e.g.
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/18/wikimedia-server-switch/ is available
> in 23 languages.

asaf and others were so kind to point me to the statistics of
wikinews, only SIX persons contributing. this a nice private wiki now
- nobody would notice if it is set read only :)
https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/SummaryEN.htm

still i think it benefits the movements software if you as WMF
communications team eat our own dogfood and publish on mediawiki.
wikinews might fit nicely as its target of publishing original texts
is closest - but anyway wiknews would need a policy change and the
bureaucrat(s) changed to allow such kinds of texts. if this policy
change revives its contributor base good. if not i'd agree with asaf
and others to just let it formally die, as it is already de facto
dead.

>> that i do not have the "usual mediawiki features". i hate that
>> signpost [7] cannot be read on mobiles because of formatting. i hate
>> the glam newsletter [6] for the same reason, despite beeig again on a
>> different wiki, no "read in different languages". which is the main
>> reason i write this mail ... and asked joe why not using wikinews. and
>> i hate that wikinews does not use mediawiki features to properly
>> classify what quality an article has, e.g. "blog", "npov", etc.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Foxj=en.wikipedia.org
>> [2]
>> https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#raphael_honigstein_and_outreach_blog_on_wikinews.3F
>> [3] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Pillars_of_Wikinews_writing
>> [4]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html
>> [5] blog:
>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/22/ted-wikimedia-collaboration/
>> [6] glam newletter: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
>> [7] signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
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,