Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

[Nathan]

Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the turn
to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders is
quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if not
for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where will
we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that beset
the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki 
wrote:

> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
> should be protected.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Romaine
> ___
> 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] Concerns in general

[John Erling Blad]

I for one would really, really, really like to see full backup of all data
to servers outside USA, if necessary with anonymized contributors. A first
step would be to store digests for the revisions on alternate servers, and
make it possible to double check the validity of the content. That is, a
canary for the content.

No I don't think WMF would tamper with the content, but it might not be up
to them to stop it from happening.
___
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] Concerns in general

[John]

The question is: Is it a legitimate issue or a sensationalized mole hill?
Given what I researched I am seeing more of a mole hill. Give it a few
days, odds are there will be clarification and this issue will blow over.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:39 PM, John  wrote:
>
> > Im not sure you are reading section 14 correctly. It makes reference to
> > Privacy Act (Privacy Act of 1974) and the privacy policy of the federal
> > agencies involved in immigration enforcement and law enforcement
> agencies.
> > IE the government can freely share information between agencies with
> > regards to non-citizens. If you look at the Privacy Act, it lists twelve
> > cases where data is permitted to be disclosed by federal agencies, with
> the
> > new order it allows all governmental data to be shared between
> governmental
> > agencies. Again none of this pertains to the Civilian sector. The Privacy
> > Shield really has nothing to do with the root issue. United States
> > governmental agencies sharing information about non-citizens with each
> > other. In the context of the actual document it is referencing sharing
> data
> > about non-citizens who are not legal residents of the United States, who
> > are illegally in the country.
>
>
> There are plenty of news reports, available with a moment on Google, that
> discuss the possibility that this executive order prevents the Commerce
> department from fulfilling its enforcement role in the law that replaced
> the Safe Harbor data protection agreement between the EU and the U.S. This
> would invalidate the new agreement, jeopardizing the authorization of US
> companies to handle data on European residents.
> ___
> 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] Concerns in general

[Nathan]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:39 PM, John  wrote:

> Im not sure you are reading section 14 correctly. It makes reference to
> Privacy Act (Privacy Act of 1974) and the privacy policy of the federal
> agencies involved in immigration enforcement and law enforcement agencies.
> IE the government can freely share information between agencies with
> regards to non-citizens. If you look at the Privacy Act, it lists twelve
> cases where data is permitted to be disclosed by federal agencies, with the
> new order it allows all governmental data to be shared between governmental
> agencies. Again none of this pertains to the Civilian sector. The Privacy
> Shield really has nothing to do with the root issue. United States
> governmental agencies sharing information about non-citizens with each
> other. In the context of the actual document it is referencing sharing data
> about non-citizens who are not legal residents of the United States, who
> are illegally in the country.


There are plenty of news reports, available with a moment on Google, that
discuss the possibility that this executive order prevents the Commerce
department from fulfilling its enforcement role in the law that replaced
the Safe Harbor data protection agreement between the EU and the U.S. This
would invalidate the new agreement, jeopardizing the authorization of US
companies to handle data on European residents.
___
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] Concerns in general

[John]

Im not sure you are reading section 14 correctly. It makes reference to
Privacy Act (Privacy Act of 1974) and the privacy policy of the federal
agencies involved in immigration enforcement and law enforcement agencies.
IE the government can freely share information between agencies with
regards to non-citizens. If you look at the Privacy Act, it lists twelve
cases where data is permitted to be disclosed by federal agencies, with the
new order it allows all governmental data to be shared between governmental
agencies. Again none of this pertains to the Civilian sector. The Privacy
Shield really has nothing to do with the root issue. United States
governmental agencies sharing information about non-citizens with each
other. In the context of the actual document it is referencing sharing data
about non-citizens who are not legal residents of the United States, who
are illegally in the country.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:13 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> >... there is zero chance that the president will be able to censor
> > the private sector.
>
> If you mean the U.S. private sector, you're right. But otherwise, the
> U.S. President is allowed to take a whole lot of actions which can
> effectively censor non-citizens, and I've got some bad news pertaining
> to one in particular involving compliance with European privacy
> regulations which could potentially result in the deletion of records
> including accounts of European citizens from hosting providers such as
> Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Please see:
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/26/trump-signs-executive-
> order-stripping-non-citizens-of-privacy-ri/
>
> "Enforcing privacy policies that specifically 'exclude persons who are
> not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents,' while aimed
> at enhancing domestic immigration laws, effectively invalidates
> America's part of the Privacy Shield agreement, opens the current
> administration up to sanctions by the EU and could lead our allies
> across the Atlantic to suspend the agreement outright."
>
> If Google is forced to delete all the personally identifying
> information of European citizens because the President ordered U.S.
> federal agencies to stop enforcing privacy policies, that would
> effectively be an act of censorship on a scale without historical
> precedent, would it not?
>
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Patrick Earley]

Hi all,


A number of staff and volunteers have been talking about community health
for some time now, and I think it’s a point most can agree with that
technical improvements alone don’t represent a comprehensive approach to
the problem. While we believe they can substantially help those working on
the front lines to deal with issues, it is true that there is much work to
be done on reducing the number and severity of problems on the social side.
As I mentioned in an earlier post
[1]
on the topic, improvements in how we as a community both deal with and
define problem behaviour is needed. The Wikimedia Foundation is working in
other areas as well and hopes to further help communities research what is
working and what is not, and provide support for trialing new approaches
and processes.

The Support and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation is currently making
progress on the development of training modules on both keeping events safe

[3] and dealing with online harassment
.[4]
Making use of community input and feedback, we're hoping to publish these
in multiple languages by the beginning of the summer. We know that training
alone will not eliminate harassment, but it will allow for the development
of best practices in handling harassment online and at events, and help
these practices to become more widespread on the Wikimedia projects.

Some challenging harassment situations arise from longstanding unresolved
disputes between contributors. Asaf Bartov has done some innovative work
with communities on identifying more effective methods of resolving
conflicts - you can see his presentation at the recent Metrics meeting
,[2] and there will be a more detailed
report on this initiative next week. Improvement of dispute resolution
practices could be of use on other projects as well, through the Community
Capacity Development program or through other initiatives, which the
Wikimedia Foundation may be able to support.

Our movement also has a variety of different policy approaches to bad
behaviour and different enforcement practices in different communities.
Some of these work well; others, perhaps not so much. The Foundation can
support communities by helping research the effectiveness of these policies
and practices, and we can work with contributors to trial new approaches.

We plan on proposing more of these types of approaches in our upcoming
Annual Plan process over the next few months, and we are working to make
anti-harassment programs more cross-disciplinary and collaborative between
the technical and community teams. As Delphine mentions, affiliates have
already taken a lead on some new initiatives, and we must help scale those
improvements to the larger movement.

I think this thread illustrates how we can continue brainstorming on the
sometimes less-straightforward social approaches to harassment mitigation
(Lodewijk came up with some intriguing ideas above) and find ways forward
that combine effective tools and technical infrastructure with an improved
social environment.

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085668.html

[2] https://youtu.be/6fF4xLHkZe4?t=19m

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Keeping_events_safe/drafting
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Online_harassment/drafting

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> On 27 January 2017 at 18:17, Lodewijk  wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that
> are
> > focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner.
> I'm
> > not sure how that would work out in practice,
>
> [snip]
>
> But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
> > Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at
> preventing
> > bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
> > maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap
> may
> > exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
> > harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger
> warnings
> > to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in
> admin
> > applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
> > approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
> > respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and
> others
> > may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).
>
> Actually Lodewijk, it's happening not too far from you. Wikimedia
> Nederland [1] has been working on this for a while, quietly, with
> small samples and small steps, but with good results and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

[James Salsman]

>... there is zero chance that the president will be able to censor
> the private sector.

If you mean the U.S. private sector, you're right. But otherwise, the
U.S. President is allowed to take a whole lot of actions which can
effectively censor non-citizens, and I've got some bad news pertaining
to one in particular involving compliance with European privacy
regulations which could potentially result in the deletion of records
including accounts of European citizens from hosting providers such as
Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Please see:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/26/trump-signs-executive-order-stripping-non-citizens-of-privacy-ri/

"Enforcing privacy policies that specifically 'exclude persons who are
not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents,' while aimed
at enhancing domestic immigration laws, effectively invalidates
America's part of the Privacy Shield agreement, opens the current
administration up to sanctions by the EU and could lead our allies
across the Atlantic to suspend the agreement outright."

If Google is forced to delete all the personally identifying
information of European citizens because the President ordered U.S.
federal agencies to stop enforcing privacy policies, that would
effectively be an act of censorship on a scale without historical
precedent, would it not?

___
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] Concerns in general

[John]

I must say the tone of the initial post to this is alarmingly biased and
almost misleading. Yes the incoming president has placed a hold on
releasing additional material. By no means does that imply that they will
start censoring data that they release or in any way affect the private
sector. Because the incoming president holds a opposite view as the
predecessor it's not surprising that they would want to audit the releases
to ensure that the data has a solid factual grounding. I've lost count of
the number of research studies and papers that I have seen that when
actually placed under a microscope don't hold up. However often the
mainstream media takes these and runs with them.

The United States is based on freedom of the press, not freedom of the
government. there is zero chance that the president will be able to censor
the private sector.
___
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] Concerns in general

[David Gerard]

On 27 January 2017 at 03:33, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.



A working live backup copy of everything would be a good and important thing.

How easy is it to bring up, say, a fully working copy of en:wp,
starting from just backups? Has anyone in WMF tested this? A backup
not being a backup until it's been restored and verified.


- d.

___
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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

I propose to challenge your comments "t’s not even about whose at fault
anymore, because we all are. When I talk to people across the movement,
they're all pretty clear that someone other than themselves is the
responsible party"

There is a difference between fault, responsibility and accountability.
Just saying we are all at fault is as meaningful or meaningless, and as
useless, as saying that we are none of us at fault.  The question is, who
is responsible for doing what, to whom are they accountable for doing it,
and how well or badly have they done what they are responsible for?

You say "We've created a culture that is hard on people".  Which culture do
you mean?  Is it the working culture within the WMF?  Or one, some or all
of the hundreds of volunteer projects?  How were those cultures created and
why did they evolve as they did?  Did anyone create them, if if "we" did,
who are "we" in this context?  Is it everyone equally?  Do you think that a
Director of Culture and Collaboration might have more responsibility and
more impact than one of the hundred thousand or so active volunteer content
contributors, or the billion or so users?

What do you propose that the Foundation and Community actually do to
support each other?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
> protagonists.
>
> I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
> people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
> shaming.
>
> We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
> constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
> Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.
>
> It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
> to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
> than themselves is the responsible party:
>
>- “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
>- “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
>- “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.
>
> First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
> competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
> empathic community members who have performed a deep service by adding
> their knowledge. I’ve met brilliant staff members that are advancing ideas
> that can have tremendously positive impacts on our projects. I’ve met
> brilliant board members who are thinking about the future in a very serious
> way.
>
> Second, it does us no good to shift the blame around and work against each
> other. We have to find ways to support each other in solving problems
> because we have a lot of important problems to solve together.
>
> We face so many challenges, not least of which is a world that seems to
> think that closed societies and ignorance and divisions are better than
> open societies, coursing with knowledge and constructive unity. Of the many
> challenges we face together: being collectively diminishing of one another
> and divisive should not be one of them.
>
> Sorry, I just can’t keep quiet  watch?v=v_DvGP6Y4jQ> on
> this any more.
>
> /a
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> > pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> > trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> > in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> > public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> > situation Romaine describes below?
> >
> > Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> > bias, or both?
> >
> > https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jim Salsman
> >
> >  forwarded message 
> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> > From: Romaine Wiki 
> > To: Wikimedia 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> >
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

[Addshore]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 at 13:10 Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Yes they are: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/mirrors.html and three out of
> four of them are outside U.S.
>

Well technically that isn't all of the data / a backup ;)


>
> Best
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:26 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > No they are not backed up outside the USA. I am not so sure there are off
> > line backups/
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 27 January 2017 at 10:10, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I hope the servers are backed up outside the USA in at least two places
> > > and that the data is also backed up off-line somewhere to make it
> > > unhackable.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peyer
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Romaine Wiki
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 5:34 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> > >
> > > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> > before
> > > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > > approve this.
> > >
> > > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > > Even if it is only partially.
> > >
> > > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data
> abroad,
> > > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on
> servers
> > in
> > > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> > >
> > > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> > > who is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration.
> I
> > > did not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do
> understand,
> > > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> > >
> > > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >
> > > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some
> time,
> > >
> > > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia
> and
> > > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> > >
> > > This is just the first week of this president!
> > >
> > > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make
> sure
> > > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > > still starts to get concerning.
> > >
> > > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> > > freedom of information, etc are important, I would think that the
> > location
> > > where the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> > > largest, I do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> > >
> > > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > > actually move when the danger grows.
> > >
> > > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the
> world.
> > > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> > >
> > > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> > and
> > > should be protected.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Romaine
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > > -
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13841 - Release Date:
> > 01/26/17
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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] Concerns in general

[Joseph Seddon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Where_do_I_get_it.3F

Seddon

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> No they are not backed up outside the USA. I am not so sure there are off
> line backups/
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 27 January 2017 at 10:10, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > I hope the servers are backed up outside the USA in at least two places
> > and that the data is also backed up off-line somewhere to make it
> > unhackable.
> > Cheers,
> > Peyer
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Romaine Wiki
> > Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 5:34 AM
> > To: Wikimedia
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> >
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> > who is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I
> > did not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> > freedom of information, etc are important, I would think that the
> location
> > where the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> > largest, I do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> > should be protected.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Romaine
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> > -
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13841 - Release Date:
> 01/26/17
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Concerns in general

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

I would not consider the dumps to be backups.  They are for purposes of
mirroring, research, analysis, offline reading and bot processing among
other things, but as a backup of our data they fall short.  Not only are
they not up to the minute but they do not contain private data, as they are
intended for public use.

I should note here, though IANAL, that any restrictions that may be placed
on US government communications do not of course apply to the private
sector.
Having said that, I would like also to see offline backups happen, for
various reasons.

Ariel


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Yes they are: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/mirrors.html and three out of
> four of them are outside U.S.
>
> Best
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:26 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > No they are not backed up outside the USA. I am not so sure there are off
> > line backups/
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 27 January 2017 at 10:10, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I hope the servers are backed up outside the USA in at least two places
> > > and that the data is also backed up off-line somewhere to make it
> > > unhackable.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peyer
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Romaine Wiki
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 5:34 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> > >
> > > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> > before
> > > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > > approve this.
> > >
> > > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > > Even if it is only partially.
> > >
> > > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data
> abroad,
> > > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on
> servers
> > in
> > > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> > >
> > > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> > > who is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration.
> I
> > > did not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do
> understand,
> > > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> > >
> > > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >
> > > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some
> time,
> > >
> > > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia
> and
> > > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> > >
> > > This is just the first week of this president!
> > >
> > > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make
> sure
> > > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > > still starts to get concerning.
> > >
> > > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> > > freedom of information, etc are important, I would think that the
> > location
> > > where the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> > > largest, I do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> > >
> > > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > > actually move when the danger grows.
> > >
> > > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the
> world.
> > > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> > >
> > > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> > and
> > > should be protected.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Romaine
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > > -
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13841 - Release Date:
> > 01/26/17
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Milos Rancic]

Anna, you are talking about a decade old problems, which are not yet addressed.

There are two exceptions: (1) Board largely stopped making shame
transfer statements; and (2) For the last couple of years, every
interaction with the staff has given impression to me that I deal with
competent professionals.

Although it wouldn't be that significant advancement for an average
organization, having in mind the complexity of the Wikimedia movement,
I have to say that I am in a way content. It was relaxing to me to
realize that, for example, the latest visit do Ghana addressed
everything basically needed.

However, those old problems are still here. Numerous tries to solve
them properly have been mostly implicitly undermined. Sometimes
because of lack of support, sometimes because of making more or less
visible barriers. And it's not about community which blocks it, but
about those in power.

It is extremely important to understand that position of power brings
more responsibility. The position of power doesn't need to be
"absolute" (i.e. Board members; yes, I know it's not absolute, that's
why I used quotes); in many cases, it's very relative and it's
sometimes hard to distinguish (who has more power on English
Wikipedia: a WMF employee or an ArbCom member). However, in the most
of the cases, it's very visible: an ordinary Wikipedia editor, not
willing to be organized in a chapter or a user group, has power to
vote few times per year and power to *edit*. While the first power is
very relative, only real power which that editor has is to edit.

That leads to sticking with the only real power and alienation from
all other segments of the Wikimedia movement. An average active editor
of Wikimedia projects most likely have very negative opinion towards
anyone else than the fellow editors.

Making equation between Board, staff and community is false because
it's about very different levels of responsibility. Urging to the
community to do something won't be treated serious as long as they
have to abandon their rights (even it's about abandoning practically
non-existent rights) as long as all of their power -- to elect the
guardians of their community -- is mostly about broken promises. And
the system has been made in the way that the promises will be always
broken.

The story of WMF (both, Board and staff) reminds me a lot of the story
of US Democratic Party and the centrist parties all over the Europe:
forcing business as usual as long as it is possible, no matter if it's
been done by ignoring the voices, searching for pseudoscientific
conclusions based on techniques that work when you want to sell
marketing services, but not so much when you want to address the
concerns of the population you lead.

Fortunately, we are not in the position that "everything has been
lost" and we could change it. But that would be possible just if there
is political will inside of the WMF to do that.

Last year this time we've witnessed the revolution, the power of staff
to replace ED. Around the end of the event, I was assured that the
staff will be the stakeholder that would lead the change. If there
were changes during the last year, they are invisible.

Long time ago -- at the beginning of this century -- we've invented
large scale constructive participatory democracy. Instead of using it,
instead of nurturing it, developing it, those in power neglected it at
the best, and actively obstructed it at the worst.

There are methods and models how to do that. I have my own
preferences, but I -- and the majority of editors, I am sure -- would
be quite fine with anything which works. And, no, limiting editors to
the decision of which image would be the first on the article about
toilet paper orientation is not one of the viable models. No, limiting
them to make decisions about the rules for deciding which image would
be the first in any article is neither a viable model.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Anna Stillwell
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
> protagonists.
>
> I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
> people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
> shaming.
>
> We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
> constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
> Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.
>
> It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
> to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
> than themselves is the responsible party:
>
>- “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
>- “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
>- “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.
>
> First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
> competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
> empathic community members who have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

Thank you for that.  In general an engagement works well when both, or all,
parties have something to bring to the table and something to gain from the
engagement (and certain other factors are in .  So for example, in the
field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the
software roadmap would be effective.  I do hope the WMF decides to try that
some time.  In this instance, there seems little that members of the
community can do to help the WMF management handle a team problem that is
taking place entirely within the WMF as an organisation.  It may well be
that there are people in the community with experience in managing software
teams, but it seems unlikely that they will be in a position to give you
the help you need on the time scales that you need it.  Perhaps at some
later date the senior leadership will want to do a lessons learned exercise
and it might be that certain community members could help, but I would not
use up the valuable bandwidth of staff and volunteers giving a blo-by-blow
account of this particular incident.  In the middle ground, there is the
issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging
by these events.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> Good to hear from you.
>
> "I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
> productive
> form of engagement between the two sides."
>
> Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in this
> instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
> spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
>
> "But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the
> Community."
>
> Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be
> learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
> statement.
>
> /a
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> > answerable to the Community.  I would have thought that was the least
> > productive form of engagement between the two sides.  The issue is what,
> if
> > anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to
> > carry on doing their work.  Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on
> > schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
> >
> > It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by
> > Chris Koerner to planning.  But doing planning better is a lesson for
> > management to learn, not for the Community.  It so happens that I have
> > advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
> at a
> > higher level.  But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the
> > Foundation's reluctance to do that.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
> > community
> > > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team?
> Or
> > > was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and
> > Z.
> > > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
> > second
> > > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our
> > > opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
> > >
> > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
> expressing
> > > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out.
> 2)
> > > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM
> > > movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People
> > who
> > > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and
> > far
> > > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
> continue
> > > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food
> on
> > > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia
> > > movement will pick him up.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anna,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I
> did
> > > > > understand, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Delphine Ménard]

On 27 January 2017 at 18:17, Lodewijk  wrote:
[snip]

> What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
> focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
> not sure how that would work out in practice,

[snip]

But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
> Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
> bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
> maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
> exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
> harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
> to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
> applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
> approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
> respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
> may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).

Actually Lodewijk, it's happening not too far from you. Wikimedia
Nederland [1] has been working on this for a while, quietly, with
small samples and small steps, but with good results and most
importantly, a lot of hope and resilience to pursue this really really
hard work.

Delphine

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017_round1/Wikimedia_Nederland/Proposal_form#Program_1:_Community_health

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Anders Wennersten]

Anna, I am surprised at your pessimism

I see cases over and over again how we  "find a way to turn our culture 
toward more generative and constructive forms of public discourse"


See how our Armenian friends is doing wonders turning their closest 
surrounding into being open in a very tough culture


remember how our Bangladesh friends managed to get their orglicense from 
authorities without paying bribes, just being true to our culture


read almost every  week how we manage to get the GLAM sector into being 
more cooperative and positive to disseminating knowledge with 
inspiration from us


Please do not concentrate too much on enwp and US

Anders



Den 2017-01-27 kl. 20:50, skrev Anna Stillwell:

Hello,

I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
protagonists.

I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
shaming.

We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.

It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
than themselves is the responsible party:

- “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
- “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
- “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.

First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
empathic community members who have performed a deep service by adding
their knowledge. I’ve met brilliant staff members that are advancing ideas
that can have tremendously positive impacts on our projects. I’ve met
brilliant board members who are thinking about the future in a very serious
way.

Second, it does us no good to shift the blame around and work against each
other. We have to find ways to support each other in solving problems
because we have a lot of important problems to solve together.

We face so many challenges, not least of which is a world that seems to
think that closed societies and ignorance and divisions are better than
open societies, coursing with knowledge and constructive unity. Of the many
challenges we face together: being collectively diminishing of one another
and divisive should not be one of them.

Sorry, I just can’t keep quiet  on
this any more.

/a


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, James Salsman  wrote:


Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
situation Romaine describes below?

Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
bias, or both?

https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033

Sincerely,
Jim Salsman

 forwarded message 
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
From: Romaine Wiki 
To: Wikimedia 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
approve this.

Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
Even if it is only partially.

Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.

In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.

I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,

What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.

This is just the first week of this president!

I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
still starts to get concerning.

If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
of information, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Anna Stillwell]

Hello,

I'd like to talk beyond this particular instance or these particular
protagonists.

I'd like to talk about culture. We've created a culture that is hard on
people, somewhat punishing of them. We engage in a good deal of public
shaming.

We need to find a way to turn our culture toward more generative and
constructive forms of public discourse. If we fail, smart, good, healthy
Wikimedians will go away and not add their knowledge to our projects.

It’s not even about whose at fault anymore, because we all are. When I talk
to people across the movement, they're all pretty clear that someone other
than themselves is the responsible party:

   - “It’s the dysfunctional board.”
   - “No, no. it’s the “toxic communities”.
   - “Of course not, its the obtuse staff”.

First, this is not healthy and it is not true. We have smart, brilliant,
competent people throughout our movement. I’ve met brilliant, generative,
empathic community members who have performed a deep service by adding
their knowledge. I’ve met brilliant staff members that are advancing ideas
that can have tremendously positive impacts on our projects. I’ve met
brilliant board members who are thinking about the future in a very serious
way.

Second, it does us no good to shift the blame around and work against each
other. We have to find ways to support each other in solving problems
because we have a lot of important problems to solve together.

We face so many challenges, not least of which is a world that seems to
think that closed societies and ignorance and divisions are better than
open societies, coursing with knowledge and constructive unity. Of the many
challenges we face together: being collectively diminishing of one another
and divisive should not be one of them.

Sorry, I just can’t keep quiet  on
this any more.

/a


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> situation Romaine describes below?
>
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> bias, or both?
>
> https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim Salsman
>
>  forwarded message 
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> From: Romaine Wiki 
> To: Wikimedia 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Sam Klein]

The sincerity and quality of communication in this thread, and is
deep-linked citations, made me grin in an outrageous week.  You are all
wonderful.

On the original subject: Interactives are increasingly satisfying to use;
hats off to those involved. No surprise they inspired this shaded
love-fest, and thanks for the active communication.

And, as there are few threads that cannot be improved with some
enthusiastic singing: Perhaps each new reply can contribute to a
karaoke-chain..
.
SJ

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did
> > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> >
> > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting
> > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their
> > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> >
> > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the
> > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
this
> > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
> > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a
> > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree is
> > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> >
>
> Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
>
> >
> > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make
> > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ,
or
> > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to
> > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile to
> > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
that
> > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
asked of
> > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> >
>
> I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
> time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
> about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed
> to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
them
> with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
> provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
>
> In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
> reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
> this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
>
> >
> > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd
> > like.
> >
>
> Thanks. I'll reach out.
>
> >
> > -Pete
> >
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anna,
> >>>
> >>> Pete,
> >>
> >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
> >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
> >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
> >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
> >>
> >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
> >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved.
> >> Sometimes
> >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know
whether
> >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The
truth
> >> is
> >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication
that
> >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
> >>
> >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being
> >> made.
> >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
once
> >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations
you
> >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law
> >> and
> >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
> >>
> >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
> >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
> >>
> >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
> >> request to grant them.
> >>
> >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
> >>
> >>> tension with
> >>> another one:
> >>>
> >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
> >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
> >>> and largely 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[James Salsman]

Fred,

> Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by
> liberal bias.

"Classically" liberal, as in libertarian trickle-down economics, have
been strongly reinforced including recently. Have you seen the cadre
of editors who protect their walled gardens of Mises Institute-sourced
economics articles? Fair Tax is a good example, pure trickle-down
advocacy with a dozen articles on it, so carefully curated that Fair
Tax would come up first in "Suggested articles" before they realized
it could be gamed like that and turned it off:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-November/005496.html

> It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information
> about Hillary Clinton into her article

That is obviously hyperbole. Her article at the end of October has a
six paragraph "Whitewater and other investigations" section mentioning
no less than eleven scandals and linking to four summary style
sub-articles. There are also separate "Email controversy" and "Clinton
Foundation and speeches" sections, each with their own sub-articles.

Fred, remember when you proposed banning me for calling the medical
credentials of a Department of Defense employee who claimed to be a
doctor in to question after repeated deletions of my edits supported
by MEDRS-quality sources that breathing uranium fumes is dangerous? I
still feel that you treated me unfairly, and you may be interested to
see that the controversy is still ongoing but slowly turning in favor
of the MEDRS literature's position:

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/latest-news


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:39 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> situation Romaine describes below?
>
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> bias, or both?
>
> https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim Salsman
>
>  forwarded message 
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> From: Romaine Wiki 
> To: Wikimedia 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
> should be protected.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Romaine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Sydney Poore]

Thanks, Molly. I encouraged people interested in understanding the
different views on the topic as it relates to Wikipedia English (and
perhaps other wikis) to read this discussion.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians,
Co-founder WikiWomen User Group,
Co-founder WikiConference North America
Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation,
Member of Simple Annual Plan Grant Committee





On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> > based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act
> on
> > them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> > incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> > risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki
> around
> > six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >
> ___
> 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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Samuel Klein]

LopeCosby used to be xx legit before their Soylent Green period. Not
surprised their depressed fans would turn to petty counterfactualism.

//$

On Jan 27, 2017 2:08 PM, "Liam Wyatt"  wrote:

> What a coincidence! "longstanding, pervasive, counter-factual, systemic
> bias towards supply side trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist
> economics" was the name of the band I saw last week at the local pub. They
> weren't very good though - I liked their earlier stuff.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 at 19:39, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> >
> > pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> >
> > trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> >
> > in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> >
> > public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> >
> > situation Romaine describes below?
> >
> >
> >
> > Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> >
> > bias, or both?
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jim Salsman
> >
> >
> >
> >  forwarded message 
> >
> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> >
> > From: Romaine Wiki 
> >
> > To: Wikimedia 
> >
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> >
> >
> >
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> >
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> >
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> >
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> >
> > approve this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> >
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> >
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> >
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> >
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> >
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> >
> > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> >
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> >
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> >
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> >
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> >
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> >
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> >
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> >
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> >
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> freedom
> >
> > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> >
> > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> >
> > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> >
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> >
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> >
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> >
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> >
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> >
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> >
> > should be protected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> >
> > 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] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[GorillaWarfare]

Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pine,
>
> We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
> them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki around
> six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
___
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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Liam Wyatt]

What a coincidence! "longstanding, pervasive, counter-factual, systemic
bias towards supply side trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist
economics" was the name of the band I saw last week at the local pub. They
weren't very good though - I liked their earlier stuff.



On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 at 19:39, James Salsman  wrote:

> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
>
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
>
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
>
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
>
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
>
> situation Romaine describes below?
>
>
>
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
>
> bias, or both?
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jim Salsman
>
>
>
>  forwarded message 
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
>
> From: Romaine Wiki 
>
> To: Wikimedia 
>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
>
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
>
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
>
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
>
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
>
> approve this.
>
>
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
>
> Even if it is only partially.
>
>
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
>
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
>
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
>
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
>
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
>
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
>
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
>
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
>
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
>
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
>
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
>
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
>
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
>
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
>
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
>
> still starts to get concerning.
>
>
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
>
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
>
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
>
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
>
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
>
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
>
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
>
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
>
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
>
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
>
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
>
> should be protected.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Romaine
>
>
>
> ___
>
> 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] New tools: pronuncify and pronuncify.net

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Asaf,

Thanks for adding the new feature to this awesome tool. I have started
recording and uploading files to Commons using Pronuncify.  I will notify
you if I face some issues.

Best regards,
Bodhisattwa


On 27 January 2017 at 14:54, Shani Evenstein  wrote:

> Very cool.
> Thanks for the work & the update!
>
> Shani.
>
> On 27 Jan 2017 05:28, "Asaf Bartov"  wrote:
>
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Following Bodhisattwa's request[1], I have added an upload feature to the
> > (command-line) Linux version of this tool, so it can now batch-upload the
> > recorded pronunciation files to Commons on your behalf.
> >
> > (Ideally, it should have used OAuth, but that would take longer to
> > implement. :))
> >
> > If you want to use the new functionality, just get the latest
> pronuncify.rb
> > script from GitHub[2], *install the new dependencies* (see the README.md
> > file on GitHub for instructions), and enjoy! :)
> >
> > (I'd love to know if any of you are using the tool.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >A.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify/issues/1
> > [2] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:23 PM Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > (this is an announcement in my capacity as a volunteer.)
> > >
> > > Inspired by a lightning talk at the recent CEE Meeting[1] by our
> > colleague
> > > Lars Aronsson, I made a little command-line tool to automate batch
> > > recording of pronunciations of words by native speakers, for uploading
> to
> > > Commons and integration into Wiktionary etc.  It is called
> *pronuncify*,
> > > is written in Ruby and uses the sox(1) tool, and should work on any
> > modern
> > > Linux (and possibly OS X) machine.  It is available here[2], with
> > > instructions.
> > >
> > > I was then asked about a Windows version, and agreed to attempt one.
> > This
> > > version is called *pronuncify.net *, and is a
> > .NET
> > > gooey GUI version of the same tool, with slightly different functions.
> > It
> > > is available here[3], with instructions.
> > >
> > > Both tools require word-list files in plaintext, with one word (or
> > phrase)
> > > per line.  Both tools name the files according to the standard
> > established
> > > in [[commons:Category:Pronunciation]], and convert them to Ogg Vorbis
> > for
> > > you, so they are ready to upload.
> > >
> > > In the future, I may add OAuth-based direct uploading to Commons.  If
> you
> > > run into difficulties, please file issues on GitHub, for the
> appropriate
> > > tool.  Feedback is welcome.
> > >
> > >A.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_
> > 2015/Programme/Lightning/Pronunciation_recordings_for_Wiktionary
> > > [2] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify
> > > [3] https://github.com/abartov/Pronuncify.net
> > > --
> > > Asaf Bartov
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Bodhisattwa
___
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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[FRED BAUDER]

Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by liberal 
bias. (It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information 
about Hillary Clinton into her article) It is important to stay in the 
US unless you wish to experience what lack of an enforced 
constitutional guarantee of free speech means in practice.


Fred Bauder




___
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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[James Salsman]

Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
situation Romaine describes below?

Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
bias, or both?

https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/808003564291244033

Sincerely,
Jim Salsman

 forwarded message 
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
From: Romaine Wiki 
To: Wikimedia 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
approve this.

Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
Even if it is only partially.

Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.

In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.

I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,

What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.

This is just the first week of this president!

I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
still starts to get concerning.

If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.

To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
actually move when the danger grows.

But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.

To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.


If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
should be protected.

Thank you.

Romaine

___
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 Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Danny Horn]

Oh, that's a really good point. For the product analyst job, we're hoping
to hire someone who's already done research on online harassment, and can
help us to learn from other people's approaches.

Your idea for using aggression/harassment scores in admin applications is
really interesting; I hadn't thought of that before. Nothing's actually
planned right now, just research and conversations, but it's neat to see
people already coming up with interesting suggestions. :)



On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Thanks Danny for the elaboration.
>
> I don't want to contest the value of this work at all - sorry if that
> seemed implied. I think it's an effort that may be quite necessary -
> especially in some communities.
>
> The set of tools you're describing to be developed, seem all to be related
> to a process that eventually leads to blocking people off our sites. That
> is what triggered my response. This process may be necessary in a number of
> cases (unfortunately), and helpful for the community health. But it is all
> 'after the fact' - once harassment has taken place.
>
> What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
> focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
> not sure how that would work out in practice, I don't have the solution
> (although some ideas have been bouncing around). This work seems related to
> bullying in general - which happens unfortunately in schools and
> communities around the world - and research on this topic may help identify
> methods that could have a preventive effect. I have yet to see a 100%
> effective program, but it may strengthen the efforts for a healthier
> community.
>
> I can see that where these approaches are still investigated, or
> non-technical, the community tech team may be less suitable for
> implementing them. But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
> Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
> bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
> maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
> exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
> harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
> to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
> applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
> approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
> respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
> may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).
>
> Hope that clarifies a bit,
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-01-27 17:24 GMT+01:00 Danny Horn :
>
> > The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them.
> Here's
> > the whole picture:
> >
> > * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag
> situations
> > for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> > aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like
> stalking
> > and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
> >
> > * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> > help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
> >
> > * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> > harassment cases, and make good decisions.
> >
> > * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
> >
> > We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of
> details
> > right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The
> product
> > manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they
> do
> > will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> > closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> > perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> > interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> > consulting to do.
> >
> > But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think
> helps
> > to explain why we're focusing on tools:
> >
> > Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out
> whose
> > version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> > diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> > they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a
> while,
> > then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> > really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> > contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
> >
> > The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the
> "story"
> > of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have
> interacted,
> > and show a timeline that helps 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Gordon Joly]

On 27/01/17 16:59, GorillaWarfare wrote:
> Pine,
> 
> We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
> them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki around
> six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
> 
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> ___
>


Are these examples of "paid to edit"?

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/create-a-wikipedia-page/31502

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/create-a-classy-wikipedia-page/332166

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/write-and-edit-wikipedia-page/322274

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/write-create-a-wikipedia-page/335913

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/wikipedia-page-writing-service-create-your-brand-page-on-wikipedia-for-marketing/245953


Gordo


___
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 Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Lodewijk]

Thanks Danny for the elaboration.

I don't want to contest the value of this work at all - sorry if that
seemed implied. I think it's an effort that may be quite necessary -
especially in some communities.

The set of tools you're describing to be developed, seem all to be related
to a process that eventually leads to blocking people off our sites. That
is what triggered my response. This process may be necessary in a number of
cases (unfortunately), and helpful for the community health. But it is all
'after the fact' - once harassment has taken place.

What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
not sure how that would work out in practice, I don't have the solution
(although some ideas have been bouncing around). This work seems related to
bullying in general - which happens unfortunately in schools and
communities around the world - and research on this topic may help identify
methods that could have a preventive effect. I have yet to see a 100%
effective program, but it may strengthen the efforts for a healthier
community.

I can see that where these approaches are still investigated, or
non-technical, the community tech team may be less suitable for
implementing them. But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).

Hope that clarifies a bit,

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-27 17:24 GMT+01:00 Danny Horn :

> The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
> the whole picture:
>
> * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
> for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
> and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
>
> * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
>
> * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> harassment cases, and make good decisions.
>
> * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
>
> We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
> right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
> manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
> will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> consulting to do.
>
> But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
> to explain why we're focusing on tools:
>
> Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
> version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
> then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
>
> The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
> of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
> and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
> responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
> investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
> admin or mediator to get involved.
>
> There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
> look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
> The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
> to correlate by hand.
>
> Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
> would be more likely to take on harassment cases, because there'd be
> greater return for the time investment. It would take some of the burden
> off the target, so they don't 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[GorillaWarfare]

Pine,

We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki around
six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
___
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 Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Anna Stillwell]

Right on. Your enthusiasm is infectious, Danny. Congratulations to all who
are making this a reality.

/a

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Danny Horn  wrote:

> The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
> the whole picture:
>
> * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
> for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
> and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
>
> * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
>
> * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> harassment cases, and make good decisions.
>
> * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
>
> We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
> right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
> manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
> will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> consulting to do.
>
> But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
> to explain why we're focusing on tools:
>
> Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
> version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
> then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
>
> The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
> of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
> and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
> responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
> investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
> admin or mediator to get involved.
>
> There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
> look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
> The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
> to correlate by hand.
>
> Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
> would be more likely to take on harassment cases, because there'd be
> greater return for the time investment. It would take some of the burden
> off the target, so they don't have to figure out which individual diffs
> they should provide in order to make their case. Also, it would be harder
> for harassers to get away with mistreating people, because they wouldn't be
> able to hide behind a smokescreen of random diffs.
>
> As folks on this thread have said, there are lots of other components to
> tackling the harassment problems. There will probably be groups of admins
> and others who are especially interested in helping with the reporting and
> evaluation, and the Foundation could provide trainings and resources for
> those groups. Making changes to the reporting system will involve a lot of
> community discussions about policies and competing values. Some of those
> conversations and plans will probably be led by the Foundation, and some of
> them will arise naturally within the community.
>
> For this specific team -- the Community Tech product team, working with the
> community advocate -- our focus is on doing research and building tools
> that will support those conversations and plans. We're not going to take
> over the community's proper role in setting policy, or making decisions
> about how to handle cases.
>
> To Fæ's point, the community will determine the social and cultural
> decisions about how to treat harassment cases, and our team's job is to
> build software that will help to put those decisions into practice.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On 27 January 2017 at 09:21, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> > ...
> > > Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
> > > fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically
> in a
> > > similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?
> > >
> > > I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will
> > become
> > > a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't
> pay
> > > all that from the single grant 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Danny Horn]

The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
the whole picture:

* Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.

* Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.

* Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
harassment cases, and make good decisions.

* Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.

We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
consulting to do.

But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
to explain why we're focusing on tools:

Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.

The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
admin or mediator to get involved.

There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
to correlate by hand.

Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
would be more likely to take on harassment cases, because there'd be
greater return for the time investment. It would take some of the burden
off the target, so they don't have to figure out which individual diffs
they should provide in order to make their case. Also, it would be harder
for harassers to get away with mistreating people, because they wouldn't be
able to hide behind a smokescreen of random diffs.

As folks on this thread have said, there are lots of other components to
tackling the harassment problems. There will probably be groups of admins
and others who are especially interested in helping with the reporting and
evaluation, and the Foundation could provide trainings and resources for
those groups. Making changes to the reporting system will involve a lot of
community discussions about policies and competing values. Some of those
conversations and plans will probably be led by the Foundation, and some of
them will arise naturally within the community.

For this specific team -- the Community Tech product team, working with the
community advocate -- our focus is on doing research and building tools
that will support those conversations and plans. We're not going to take
over the community's proper role in setting policy, or making decisions
about how to handle cases.

To Fæ's point, the community will determine the social and cultural
decisions about how to treat harassment cases, and our team's job is to
build software that will help to put those decisions into practice.





On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 27 January 2017 at 09:21, Lodewijk  wrote:
> ...
> > Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
> > fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
> > similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?
> >
> > I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will
> become
> > a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
> > all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
> > proper context.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
>
> +1 Spot on.
>
> The plan appears to hinge on blocks as the outcome. Based on cases of
> long term harassment targeted at individuals which invariably involved
> off-wiki doxxing or contacting friends and family members of their
> target, blocking 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

Hey Pine,
Thanks for all of the good ideas. I'll reach out to you.
As for the other suggestions, I appreciate them. I do a lot better and
understand a lot more in 1:1 communication, so I'd prefer to interview
people.
/a

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation
> about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a
> subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than
> a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that
> everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4.
> Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications
> office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many
> other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours,
> I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they
> foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF
> managers who can actually make changes happen.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
Fuller

Anna Stillwell
Director of Culture
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] Concerns in general

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
> Yes they are: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/mirrors.html and three out of
> four of them are outside U.S.

No images/files backup outside of US.

-- 
Milos

___
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] Concerns in general

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Yes they are: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/mirrors.html and three out of
four of them are outside U.S.

Best

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:26 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> No they are not backed up outside the USA. I am not so sure there are off
> line backups/
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 27 January 2017 at 10:10, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > I hope the servers are backed up outside the USA in at least two places
> > and that the data is also backed up off-line somewhere to make it
> > unhackable.
> > Cheers,
> > Peyer
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Romaine Wiki
> > Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 5:34 AM
> > To: Wikimedia
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> >
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> > who is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I
> > did not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> > freedom of information, etc are important, I would think that the
> location
> > where the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> > largest, I do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> > should be protected.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Romaine
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> > -
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13841 - Release Date:
> 01/26/17
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Concerns in general

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No they are not backed up outside the USA. I am not so sure there are off
line backups/
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 January 2017 at 10:10, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> I hope the servers are backed up outside the USA in at least two places
> and that the data is also backed up off-line somewhere to make it
> unhackable.
> Cheers,
> Peyer
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Romaine Wiki
> Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 5:34 AM
> To: Wikimedia
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
>
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
>
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
>
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
>
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I
> did not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
>
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
>
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
>
> This is just the first week of this president!
>
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
>
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> freedom of information, etc are important, I would think that the location
> where the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> largest, I do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
>
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
>
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
>
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
>
>
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
> should be protected.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Romaine
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13841 - Release Date: 01/26/17
>
>
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Fæ]

On 27 January 2017 at 09:21, Lodewijk  wrote:
...
> Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
> fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
> similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?
>
> I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will become
> a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
> all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
> proper context.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk

+1 Spot on.

The plan appears to hinge on blocks as the outcome. Based on cases of
long term harassment targeted at individuals which invariably involved
off-wiki doxxing or contacting friends and family members of their
target, blocking Wikimedia accounts is an approach that may remove
Wikimedia projects as a platform but does little to help reform the
person causing harassment. I would rather see systems that include
reaching out to the apparent harasser to help them recognize and deal
with their anger or obsessive issues. Treating badly behaved
individuals as the "other", without aiming for a lasting resolution,
means we are back to the old days of telling the unfortunate
target/victim to change their identity or grow a thicker skin as the
on-line harassment may never stop.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New tools: pronuncify and pronuncify.net

[Shani Evenstein]

Very cool.
Thanks for the work & the update!

Shani.

On 27 Jan 2017 05:28, "Asaf Bartov"  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> Following Bodhisattwa's request[1], I have added an upload feature to the
> (command-line) Linux version of this tool, so it can now batch-upload the
> recorded pronunciation files to Commons on your behalf.
>
> (Ideally, it should have used OAuth, but that would take longer to
> implement. :))
>
> If you want to use the new functionality, just get the latest pronuncify.rb
> script from GitHub[2], *install the new dependencies* (see the README.md
> file on GitHub for instructions), and enjoy! :)
>
> (I'd love to know if any of you are using the tool.)
>
> Cheers,
>
>A.
>
> [1] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify/issues/1
> [2] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:23 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > (this is an announcement in my capacity as a volunteer.)
> >
> > Inspired by a lightning talk at the recent CEE Meeting[1] by our
> colleague
> > Lars Aronsson, I made a little command-line tool to automate batch
> > recording of pronunciations of words by native speakers, for uploading to
> > Commons and integration into Wiktionary etc.  It is called *pronuncify*,
> > is written in Ruby and uses the sox(1) tool, and should work on any
> modern
> > Linux (and possibly OS X) machine.  It is available here[2], with
> > instructions.
> >
> > I was then asked about a Windows version, and agreed to attempt one.
> This
> > version is called *pronuncify.net *, and is a
> .NET
> > gooey GUI version of the same tool, with slightly different functions.
> It
> > is available here[3], with instructions.
> >
> > Both tools require word-list files in plaintext, with one word (or
> phrase)
> > per line.  Both tools name the files according to the standard
> established
> > in [[commons:Category:Pronunciation]], and convert them to Ogg Vorbis
> for
> > you, so they are ready to upload.
> >
> > In the future, I may add OAuth-based direct uploading to Commons.  If you
> > run into difficulties, please file issues on GitHub, for the appropriate
> > tool.  Feedback is welcome.
> >
> >A.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_
> 2015/Programme/Lightning/Pronunciation_recordings_for_Wiktionary
> > [2] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify
> > [3] https://github.com/abartov/Pronuncify.net
> > --
> > Asaf Bartov
> >
> >
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Lodewijk]

Hi Johan,

Thanks for the link, very insightful indeed. Glad to see these documents
public

Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?

I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will become
a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
proper context.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-27 10:14 GMT+01:00 Johan Jönsson :

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague
> ways.
> >
> > Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of
> these
> > funds?
> >
> > Todd
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> You can take a look at the grant proposal (also linked to from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative) here:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/
> Wikimedia_Foundation_grant_proposal_-_Anti-Harassment_
> Tools_For_Wikimedia_Projects_-_2017.pdf
>
> Pages 6–14 should be relevant.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
>
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

First, I am of course very happy about the attention and support from Mr.
Newmark.

But I am wondering about the special focus to "tools"; harassment is a
problem on the social level, not the technical one. Also, after all those
years in which we talk about harassment, I find it difficult to trust our
Wikimedia institutions to come with an effective approach...

Kind regards





2017-01-27 3:47 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :

> These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways.
>
> Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these
> funds?
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Lien 
> wrote:
>
> > This press release is also available online here:
> >  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/
> > Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_$500,000_from_the_Craig_
> > Newmark_Foundation_and_craigslist_Charitable_Fund_to_
> > support_a_healthy_and_inclusive_Wikimedia_community
> >  Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_$500,000_from_the_Craig_
> Newmark_Foundation_and_craigslist_Charitable_Fund_to_
> support_a_healthy_and_inclusive_Wikimedia_community>
> >
> > And as a blog post on the Wikimedia blog here:
> >
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/26/community-health-initiative-grant/
> >
> >
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation receives $500,000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation
> > and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive
> Wikimedia
> > community
> >
> > Grant supports development of more advanced tools for volunteers and
> staff
> > to reduce harassing behavior on Wikipedia and block harassers from the
> site
> >
> > SAN FRANCISCO — January 26, 2017 — Today, the Wikimedia Foundation
> > announced the launch of a community health initiative to address
> harassment
> > and toxic behavior on Wikipedia, with initial funding of US$500,000 from
> > the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund. The two seed
> > grants, each US$250,000, will support the development of tools for
> > volunteer editors and staff to reduce harassment on Wikipedia and block
> > harassers.
> >
> > Approximately 40% of internet users
> > , and as many
> > as 70% of younger users have personally experienced harassment online,
> with
> > regional studies showing rates as high as 76%
> >  releases/2016/symantec_0309_01>
> > for young women. While harassment differs across the internet, on
> Wikipedia
> > and other Wikimedia projects, harassment has been shown to reduce
> > participation on the sites. More than 50%
> >  Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf>
> > of people who reported experiencing harassment also reported decreasing
> > their participation in the Wikimedia community.
> >
> > Volunteer editors on Wikipedia are often the first line of response for
> > finding and addressing harassment on Wikipedia. "Trolling
> > ," "doxxing
> > ," and other menacing behaviors
> are
> > burdens to Wikipedia's contributors, impeding their ability to do the
> > writing and editing that makes Wikipedia so comprehensive and useful.
> This
> > program seeks to respond to requests from editors over the years for
> better
> > tools and support for responding to harassment and toxic behavior.
> >
> > “To ensure Wikipedia’s vitality, people of good will need to work
> together
> > to prevent trolling, harassment and cyber-bullying from interfering with
> > the common good,” said Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist. “To that
> end,
> > I'm supporting the work of the Wikimedia Foundation towards the
> prevention
> > of harassment.”
> >
> > The initiative is part of a commitment to community health at the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia
> > and the other Wikimedia projects, in collaboration with the global
> > community of volunteer editors. In 2015, the Foundation published its
> first
> > Harassment Survey
> >  about
> > the nature of the issue in order to identify key areas of concern. In
> > November 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued a
> > statement of support
> >  Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_
> Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces>
> > calling for a more “proactive” approach to addressing harassment as a
> > barrier to healthy, inclusive communities on Wikipedia.
> >
> > "If we want everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, we need to
> make
> > sure everyone feels welcome,” said Katherine Maher, Executive Director of
> > the Wikimedia Foundation. “This grant supports a healthy 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Johan Jönsson]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways.
>
> Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these
> funds?
>
> Todd

Hi Todd,

You can take a look at the grant proposal (also linked to from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative) here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Wikimedia_Foundation_grant_proposal_-_Anti-Harassment_Tools_For_Wikimedia_Projects_-_2017.pdf

Pages 6–14 should be relevant.

//Johan Jönsson
--

___
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] Concerns in general

[Peter Southwood]

I hope the servers are backed up outside the USA in at least two places and 
that the data is also backed up off-line somewhere to make it unhackable.
Cheers,
Peyer

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Romaine Wiki
Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 5:34 AM
To: Wikimedia
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with knowledge 
on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as result of the 
Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before something can be 
published about this topic, the government needs to approve this.

Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
Even if it is only partially.

Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad, out 
of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in the 
Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.

In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who is 
making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did not 
understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand, apparently 
they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.

I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,

What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based organisation 
is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and the free word, 
while the president of the US is promoting harassment, disrespect and 
censorship on a massive scale.

This is just the first week of this president!

I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure 
Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this still 
starts to get concerning.

If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom of 
information, etc are important, I would think that the location where the 
organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I do not 
know where this is but it is definitely not the US.

To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would 
actually move when the danger grows.

But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the 
knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.

To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should think 
about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.


If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and 
should be protected.

Thank you.

Romaine
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13841 - Release Date: 01/26/17


___
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,