[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 scholarship applications open

[Martin Rulsch]

Hi all,

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2017 which is being held in
Montréal, Canada on August 11–13, 2017 are now being accepted. Applications
are open until Monday, 20 February 2017 23:59 UTC.

Applicants will be able to apply for a partial or full scholarship. A full
scholarship will cover the cost of an individual's round-trip travel,
shared accommodation, and conference registration fees as arranged by the
Wikimedia Foundation. A partial scholarship will cover conference
registration fees and shared accommodation.

Applicants will be rated using a pre-determined selection process and
selection criteria established by the Scholarship Committee and the
Wikimedia Foundation, who will determine which applications are successful.
To learn more about Wikimania 2017 scholarships, please visit:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships

To apply for a scholarship, fill out the multi-language application form
on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply

It is highly recommended that applicants review all the material on the
Scholarships page and the associated FAQ ( https://wikimania2017.
wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships/FAQ ) before submitting an application.

If you have any questions, please contact:
wikimania-scholarships at wikimedia.org

or leave a message at:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholarships

Please help us spread the word!

Best regards,
for the Scholarship Committee
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_committee
___
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] January 11: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#4)

[Katherine Maher]

Hi all,

Last week's update was late, this one is early - the Foundation staff are
together this week for the Developers Summit and All Hands meeting the next
two days, so we'll be doing more stuff face to face, learning and sharing.
So, with no further ado:

As I mentioned in past updates, we have been working to identify the
external experts which will serve as the Lead Architects for this process.
I am very excited to introduce you to williamsworks
!

williamsworks[1] has more than a decade of experience working with
nonprofits, companies, and philanthropists around the world. Their team is
made up of folks with deep experience in philanthropy, communications,
public policy, and global development. They are based out of Seattle, with
a global team in places such as Nairobi and Berlin. We're going to be
working with a dedicated team, including their founder, Whitney Williams,
on this process.

williamsworks will be responsible for coordinating all the various moving
parts and needs of the strategy process. They'll be working closely with
folks in the Foundation, community, and myself to help us identify the
information we need and the conversations we need. They'll be leading us
through parsing information and making decisions to help us arrive at a
shared direction.

To begin this work process, I'm delighted that they'll be joining us at
this week's All Hands. They've been meeting with teams from across the
Foundation today in order to get to know folks. Tomorrow and Friday they'll
be here to listen and learn about our culture and mission.

Over the past few weeks, we evaluated williamsworks among other candidates
according criteria that reflects our needs as a movement. This included
whether the candidate had created successful organizational or movement
strategies before, whether they demonstrated a strong understanding of the
need to build an inclusive process, and whether the candidate had
international and nonprofit experience. (More specific criteria is outlined
on Meta-Wiki.[2])

The next step is building out and confirming the core team facilitating the
work ahead. Please stay tuned to this list and the Movement Strategy Portal
on Meta-Wiki for more details.[3]

Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/11_January_2017_-_Update_4_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process


[1] http://williamsworks.com
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Team#Criteria_for_Lead_Architect
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017

-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Newyorkbrad]

If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
could make good use of it.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half
> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total),
> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
> sides.[1]
>
> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
> that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
>
> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
> interested to see what ideas others have.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta
> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>>
>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.
>>
>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
>>
>> Where and how should we keep such files?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann Forget
>> ___
>> 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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Pete Forsyth]

Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half
ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total),
but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
sides.[1]

In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).

But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
interested to see what ideas others have.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>
> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.
>
> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
>
> Where and how should we keep such files?
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann Forget
> ___
> 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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf

This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
(the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.

It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.

Where and how should we keep such files?

Regards,

Yann Forget
___
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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Nabin K. Sapkota]

That's a great news!!

Thanks,
Nabin
Wikimedians of Nepal


On Jan 11, 2017 11:33 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

> Rupert,
>
> A Happy New Year to you too.  I don't see why my personal motivation for
> asking this question would come into it.  The request is to publish the
> overall product roadmap to the community, for the community to collaborate
> with the WMF on planning the future products.  That does not sound to me
> like any kind of complaint about past actions – why would you assume that?
>
> In answer to Joseph's posting: this response was about current planning for
> the one product, while my request is about medium-to-long term planning for
> the whole product range.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:47 AM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your
> > question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed
> > quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking
> at
> > least imo.
> >
> > you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community
> consensus
> > on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that
> WMF
> > builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You
> > are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time
> increases
> > spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there
> will
> > be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience
> which
> > you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss
> how
> > it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would
> you
> > give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
> >
> > Best Rupert
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dear Wes
> >
> > Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to
> say
> > that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
> > very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
> > many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product
> roadmap
> > would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major
> deveopments
> > and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess
> of a
> > single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
> > aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have
> the
> > level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
> > that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
> > expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
> > the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
> > time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
> > frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
> > known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
> > editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
> > year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
> >
> > So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
> > not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
> > transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
> > the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
> >
> > Yours
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Rogol,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> > > community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
> > We
> > > update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as
> they
> > > may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> > > specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation,
> discussion
> > or
> > > connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
> > [3].
> > >
> > > Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
> > have
> > > specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
> > >
> > > Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> > > discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Wes
> > >
> > > Wes Moran
> > > Vice President of Product
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > > Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> > > [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> > > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> > > [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Overview
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Rupert,

A Happy New Year to you too.  I don't see why my personal motivation for
asking this question would come into it.  The request is to publish the
overall product roadmap to the community, for the community to collaborate
with the WMF on planning the future products.  That does not sound to me
like any kind of complaint about past actions – why would you assume that?

In answer to Joseph's posting: this response was about current planning for
the one product, while my request is about medium-to-long term planning for
the whole product range.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:47 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your
> question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed
> quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking at
> least imo.
>
> you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community consensus
> on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that WMF
> builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You
> are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time increases
> spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there will
> be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience which
> you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss how
> it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would you
> give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
>
> Best Rupert
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Wes
>
> Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to say
> that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
> very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
> many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product roadmap
> would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments
> and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a
> single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
> aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have the
> level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
> that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
> expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
> the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
> time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
> frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
> known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
> editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
> year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
>
> So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
> not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
> transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
> the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
>
> Yours
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
>
> > Hello Rogol,
> >
> > Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> > community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
> We
> > update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
> > may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> > specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
> or
> > connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
> [3].
> >
> > Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
> have
> > specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
> >
> > Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> > discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Wes
> >
> > Wes Moran
> > Vice President of Product
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> > [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> > [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume
> that
> > > the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
> > > various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
> the
> > > phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but
> whatever
> > it
> > > is, I am asking for it to be shared