Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

I'm glad to hear that everything is all right and that you don't need our
help after all.  When you return from your break, it would be of value to
the community for you to let them know what those "actual changes" were.
That way we can help you even better next time.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello Rogol,
>
> I think the process on this particular count already took place.
> We wrote a report in good faith.
> We responded to critique in good faith.
> We're making actual changes in good faith.
>
> Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> > > don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
> > >
> > > We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get
> feedback.
> > > We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And
> I
> > > actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that.
> >
> >
> > It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> > expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and
> responsive
> > that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> > our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it
> being
> > a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> > resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> > have already?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Anna Stillwell]

Hello Rogol,

I think the process on this particular count already took place.
We wrote a report in good faith.
We responded to critique in good faith.
We're making actual changes in good faith.

Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
Warmly,
/a

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> > don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
> >
> > We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> > We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
> > actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that.
>
>
> It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
> that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
> a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> have already?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Anna Stillwell]

Nice question, James. Head over to Meta and ask. They'll be able to tell
you their sources, and if you have better sources, they'll update it.

Warmly,
/a

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:19 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Hi Katherine,
>
> Where did the projections on the "Internet penetration by 2030"
> slide[1] on the process briefing[2] come from? They look very low. The
> file summary description says they came from the UN Department of
> Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division[3] but they aren't
> anywhere in that document which doesn't mention the internet at all.
> There don't seem to be any reasons to doubt that everyone who has
> cellular phone service today (over 98% of the world population[4] and
> about 83% of Bangladeshis) won't have mobile broadband in thirteen
> years. London-based IBIS Capital says that the developed world will
> have about 90% mobile broadband penetration in just three years.[5]
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_
> World_in_2030_-_Presentation_for_movement_strategy_discussions.pdf=30
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031
>
> [3] http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/
> publications/pdf/trends/Population2030.pdf
>
> [4] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2
>
> [5] http://wildfirecomms-images.co.uk/img/broadband-1450108646.jpg
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Happy March! This week I was in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress
> > conference to support the efforts of the Iraqi Wikimedians User Group.
> The
> > community, led by Sarmad Saeed Yaseen and Ravan Jafaar al-Taie, led the
> > development of a partnership with a local mobile network operator to
> bring
> > Wikipedia to 12 million people for free. This is significant for a nation
> > where mobile penetration is near-universal, but internet penetration is
> > around 17%. [0] Congratulations to our Iraq Wikimedians for their
> efforts!
> >
> > *Feedback requested*
> > There are two items in particular on Meta-Wiki ready for your feedback:
> >
> >- The briefing document has been expanded; it contains an overview of
> >the information that every participant in the strategy discussion
> should
> >know. Please help us improve it or share your thoughts on the talk
> page.
> >   - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031
> >- Please also review the basic premises that should be mutually agreed
> >upon by all participants and used as the basis of arguments. Once the
> >discussions start, the premises will be fixed.
> >   - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10191140
> >
> > *Track A (Organized groups) and Track B (Individual contributors)*
> >
> >- The Core Team and Track Leads have posted the draft of the toolkit
> for
> >coordinating community discussions on Meta-Wiki.[1] They will be
> finalizing
> >it with the Community Process Steering Committee this week.
> >- The Core Team is developing some basic terminology and simple
> examples
> >for a shared understanding of our intended outcome from the first
> phase of
> >the strategy process. This will be shared with the Community Process
> >Steering Committee before posting to Meta-Wiki for feedback.
> >- Zack McCune and Blanca Flores from the Communications Department are
> >working with  the Core Team on a final graphic image of the process
> model
> >that will be posted on Meta-Wiki next week.
> >- Victor Grigas from Communications Department created a short video
> to
> >inspire participants to get engaged and contribute; the final version
> >should be available next week and utilized in subsequent
> announcements.
> >- The Core Team researched movement strategy terminology, components,
> >examples, and theories, and they continue to work with experts in and
> >outside the Foundation to further develop content for the briefing
> >document.[2] We expect this work to be complete by the end of this
> week.
> >- The Core Team and Track Leads reviewed the initial plan for
> Wikimedia
> >Conference Strategy track with the facilitators. They are working on a
> >detailed agenda, which will be posted on Meta-Wiki in the next two
> weeks.[3]
> >- Nicole and the Core Team are finalizing the materials which will be
> >used to facilitate the first Track A discussions being held 10 March
> to 10
> >April.
> >- The Core Team and Track Leads are reviewing options for collecting
> >research for Tracks A & B.
> >- Community Engagement is completing the hiring of language
> >liaisons/specialists, and will begin training and onboarding next
> week.
> >
> >
> > *Track C (Partners and readers in high-reach markets) and Track D
> (Partners
> > and readers in low reach markets)*
> >
> >- The Core Team met with John Holcombe (Wellspring Insights) and
> >discussed the objectives and best 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[James Salsman]

Hi Katherine,

Where did the projections on the "Internet penetration by 2030"
slide[1] on the process briefing[2] come from? They look very low. The
file summary description says they came from the UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division[3] but they aren't
anywhere in that document which doesn't mention the internet at all.
There don't seem to be any reasons to doubt that everyone who has
cellular phone service today (over 98% of the world population[4] and
about 83% of Bangladeshis) won't have mobile broadband in thirteen
years. London-based IBIS Capital says that the developed world will
have about 90% mobile broadband penetration in just three years.[5]

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_World_in_2030_-_Presentation_for_movement_strategy_discussions.pdf=30

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031

[3] 
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Population2030.pdf

[4] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2

[5] http://wildfirecomms-images.co.uk/img/broadband-1450108646.jpg

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Katherine Maher  wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Happy March! This week I was in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress
> conference to support the efforts of the Iraqi Wikimedians User Group. The
> community, led by Sarmad Saeed Yaseen and Ravan Jafaar al-Taie, led the
> development of a partnership with a local mobile network operator to bring
> Wikipedia to 12 million people for free. This is significant for a nation
> where mobile penetration is near-universal, but internet penetration is
> around 17%. [0] Congratulations to our Iraq Wikimedians for their efforts!
>
> *Feedback requested*
> There are two items in particular on Meta-Wiki ready for your feedback:
>
>- The briefing document has been expanded; it contains an overview of
>the information that every participant in the strategy discussion should
>know. Please help us improve it or share your thoughts on the talk page.
>   - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031
>- Please also review the basic premises that should be mutually agreed
>upon by all participants and used as the basis of arguments. Once the
>discussions start, the premises will be fixed.
>   - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10191140
>
> *Track A (Organized groups) and Track B (Individual contributors)*
>
>- The Core Team and Track Leads have posted the draft of the toolkit for
>coordinating community discussions on Meta-Wiki.[1] They will be finalizing
>it with the Community Process Steering Committee this week.
>- The Core Team is developing some basic terminology and simple examples
>for a shared understanding of our intended outcome from the first phase of
>the strategy process. This will be shared with the Community Process
>Steering Committee before posting to Meta-Wiki for feedback.
>- Zack McCune and Blanca Flores from the Communications Department are
>working with  the Core Team on a final graphic image of the process model
>that will be posted on Meta-Wiki next week.
>- Victor Grigas from Communications Department created a short video to
>inspire participants to get engaged and contribute; the final version
>should be available next week and utilized in subsequent announcements.
>- The Core Team researched movement strategy terminology, components,
>examples, and theories, and they continue to work with experts in and
>outside the Foundation to further develop content for the briefing
>document.[2] We expect this work to be complete by the end of this week.
>- The Core Team and Track Leads reviewed the initial plan for Wikimedia
>Conference Strategy track with the facilitators. They are working on a
>detailed agenda, which will be posted on Meta-Wiki in the next two 
> weeks.[3]
>- Nicole and the Core Team are finalizing the materials which will be
>used to facilitate the first Track A discussions being held 10 March to 10
>April.
>- The Core Team and Track Leads are reviewing options for collecting
>research for Tracks A & B.
>- Community Engagement is completing the hiring of language
>liaisons/specialists, and will begin training and onboarding next week.
>
>
> *Track C (Partners and readers in high-reach markets) and Track D (Partners
> and readers in low reach markets)*
>
>- The Core Team met with John Holcombe (Wellspring Insights) and
>discussed the objectives and best methodologies for quick, inexpensive,
>generative research in high-reach markets. His recommendation is an online
>survey that explores awareness, attitudes and usage.
>- The Core Team and Track C Leads spoke with Celinda Lake (President,
>Lake Research Partners) to get her insights on the proposed market research
>and recommendations on firms or contractors (including Lake) who could
>conduct desk and/or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Dan Andreescu]

I want to express respect for this discussion and re-iterate two favorite
points:

Erik says:

"I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world."

And Risker points out that scientific consensus changes and offers some
great examples (too long to paste, timestamp on the message is Fri, Mar 3,
2017 at 1:41 AM).

We are part of a small group of people that's figured out how to document
human consciousness and awareness, as dynamic as it is.  I think it's a lot
to ask to capture this fairly in the annual report, but it seems we're
giving it an honest try.  I'm really honestly in awe of this collaborative
effort.  And I had similar initial reactions to the annual report as others
on this thread.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> > don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
> >
> > We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> > We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
> > actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that.
>
>
> It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
> that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
> a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> have already?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Katherine Maher]

Hi all!

Happy March! This week I was in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress
conference to support the efforts of the Iraqi Wikimedians User Group. The
community, led by Sarmad Saeed Yaseen and Ravan Jafaar al-Taie, led the
development of a partnership with a local mobile network operator to bring
Wikipedia to 12 million people for free. This is significant for a nation
where mobile penetration is near-universal, but internet penetration is
around 17%. [0] Congratulations to our Iraq Wikimedians for their efforts!

*Feedback requested*
There are two items in particular on Meta-Wiki ready for your feedback:

   - The briefing document has been expanded; it contains an overview of
   the information that every participant in the strategy discussion should
   know. Please help us improve it or share your thoughts on the talk page.
  - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031
   - Please also review the basic premises that should be mutually agreed
   upon by all participants and used as the basis of arguments. Once the
   discussions start, the premises will be fixed.
  - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10191140

*Track A (Organized groups) and Track B (Individual contributors)*

   - The Core Team and Track Leads have posted the draft of the toolkit for
   coordinating community discussions on Meta-Wiki.[1] They will be finalizing
   it with the Community Process Steering Committee this week.
   - The Core Team is developing some basic terminology and simple examples
   for a shared understanding of our intended outcome from the first phase of
   the strategy process. This will be shared with the Community Process
   Steering Committee before posting to Meta-Wiki for feedback.
   - Zack McCune and Blanca Flores from the Communications Department are
   working with  the Core Team on a final graphic image of the process model
   that will be posted on Meta-Wiki next week.
   - Victor Grigas from Communications Department created a short video to
   inspire participants to get engaged and contribute; the final version
   should be available next week and utilized in subsequent announcements.
   - The Core Team researched movement strategy terminology, components,
   examples, and theories, and they continue to work with experts in and
   outside the Foundation to further develop content for the briefing
   document.[2] We expect this work to be complete by the end of this week.
   - The Core Team and Track Leads reviewed the initial plan for Wikimedia
   Conference Strategy track with the facilitators. They are working on a
   detailed agenda, which will be posted on Meta-Wiki in the next two weeks.[3]
   - Nicole and the Core Team are finalizing the materials which will be
   used to facilitate the first Track A discussions being held 10 March to 10
   April.
   - The Core Team and Track Leads are reviewing options for collecting
   research for Tracks A & B.
   - Community Engagement is completing the hiring of language
   liaisons/specialists, and will begin training and onboarding next week.


*Track C (Partners and readers in high-reach markets) and Track D (Partners
and readers in low reach markets)*

   - The Core Team met with John Holcombe (Wellspring Insights) and
   discussed the objectives and best methodologies for quick, inexpensive,
   generative research in high-reach markets. His recommendation is an online
   survey that explores awareness, attitudes and usage.
   - The Core Team and Track C Leads spoke with Celinda Lake (President,
   Lake Research Partners) to get her insights on the proposed market research
   and recommendations on firms or contractors (including Lake) who could
   conduct desk and/or generative research.
   - The Core Team and Track C Leads spoke with Wikimedia Deutschland about
   a Track C strategy salon around Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. We will be
   working with them to find local contacts to invite. The date will be
   Wednesday, March 29.
   - Track C Leads are starting a job description and recruiting for a
   project assistant.
   - Track C Leads are working with Nick Wilson of the Technical
   Collaboration team to publish the Track C proposal on Meta-Wiki by mid-next
   week.
   - The Core Team and Track D Leads reviewed a preliminary list of experts
   and brainstormed additional types of people and organizations we should
   consult. They also began reaching back out to our networks to help fill
   some of the identified gaps.


*Next steps*

   - Develop training sessions for newly hired language
   liaisons/specialists and discussion coordinators.
   - Send launch email to Track A organized groups, so that they can
   prepare for and schedule their in-person and virtual discussions, which
   will begin 10 March.
   - Prepare for Track B discussions, which will start by 14 March.
   - Develop content for discussion prompts, facilitator guides, and
  summary templates for reporting back results from discussions.
  - Finalize 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:

> [...]
> And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
>
> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
> actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that.


It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
have already?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks of new accounts in Angola?

[Lucas Teles]

They were probably caught on this range block:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=User%3A105.168.0.0%2F16=block


*Lucas Teles*

*+55 (71) 99707 6409Steward at Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator *
*at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*- Member of Wikimedia
Community User Group Brasil 

2017-02-22 12:54 GMT-03:00 Olatunde Isaac :

> In addition to that thread, see also "https://commons.wikimedia.
> org/wiki/User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case"
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Olatunde Isaac" 
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:30:06
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: reachout2is...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks of new accounts in Angola?
>
> Yes, there are some mass vandalism from Angola last year. Yaroslav, I
> think you may be looking for this thread, "https://www.mail-archive.com/
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg23413.html"
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Yaroslav Blanter 
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Wed,
> 22 Feb 2017 16:17:32
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks of new accounts in Angola?
>
> Did not we have some mass vandalism from Angola some time ago, and then
> measures had to be taken? I do not remember the details.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:57 AM, George William Herbert <
> george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Have them hit whatismyip.org and tell us what shows up..,
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
> > rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been receiving complains via Facebook from people of Angola about
> > not
> > > being able to create new accounts, some know something about it? They
> > > receive the as if the IP was blocked, however we receive more then 5
> > > complains just in the Commons FB page.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> > > rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
> > > +55 11 979 718 884
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Sure, and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with that.

However, in the current legal construct, the author can decide whether to
apply that principle or not.

The question remains: if people apply principles that go way beyond that,
what do we do? I think question that was put in the German community is a
very realistic one, and if we don't tackle the issue, that may bite us
later. There is no correct answer though - because both using and not using
such image (or even deleting it) will have a downside to free knowledge.
Either we don't show a piece of free knowledge, or we risk that people stop
trusting our repository as a safe resource to reuse from.

There are multiple alternative approaches to the issue, besides stopping to
use the image (or even deleting it). One is to add a warning to the
description page. Rupert's proposal on this list is the mirror of that:
adding a 'marked as safe' notice (which is what using a separate project
basically is), for a subset of licenses that are considered reuse-friendly
(not just in theory, but also in practice).

I personally feel that would go too far - and that we should tackle the
actual problem: bad faith uploaders. This is, presumably, a very small
percentage, and marking them as such may go a long way. I could even
imagine prohibiting those users under certain circumstances to upload
further material, as they are abusing the system. But that is rather a
question for the Wikimedia Commons community, I suspect.

Lodewijk

2017-03-03 3:10 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

> Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image
> or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
>
> Peter does this work better
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=gbs_navlinks_s
>
> J
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> >  Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try
> to
> > attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones
> James
> > mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
> > quite right.
> >
> > If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
> > about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good
> faith
> > effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
> > acceptable.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Todd,
> > >
> > > as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> > > wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
> > indeed
> > > what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> > > (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the
> hope
> > > that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
> > the
> > > license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies
> to
> > > that use, and they send them a bill.
> > >
> > > If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to
> the
> > > caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
> > still
> > > be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some
> licenses,
> > > you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
> > which
> > > is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
> > >
> > > The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask
> publishers
> > to
> > > attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> > > images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention
> of
> > > using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
> > >
> > > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> > > discussion)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :
> > >
> > > > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> > > acknowledgement
> > > > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> > > >
> > > > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a
> > caption.
> > > It
> > > > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
> > can
> > > > see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very
> > minimal
> > > > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > > > material.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work
> includs
> > > > > "improving 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Yaroslav Blanter]

This is probably best for a separate topic, but it was raised a couple of
times on this thread, so I respond here.

Concerning the better engagement of WMF with community, not calling any
names here, the best way to engage is, well, you know, to edit Wikimedia
projects. Not to just make two edits per month, but, seriously, edit
Wikipedia in your mothertongue, try to make 20 edits per day. Add Village
pump(s) to your watchlist, participate in the discussions. Do some
maintenance. Try to get elected administrator. Upload files on Commons,
have some of them deleted, go file a deletion review request. Nominate a
couple of files yourself. Go to Wikidata and create a couple of items, fill
them up with referenced statements. Then you would be fully engaged with
the community. This of course requires time, and you are busy. But we are
all busy, and we do not get paid for editing the projects, we do it in our
free time. We have several excellent examples of editors who were hired by
WMF and perform nicely, or, reversely, people who were first employed by
WMF and eventually became regular editors. This is possible and pretty
efficient.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Sources may take sides. Absolutely. It is exactly by producing
> "alternative" facts that some sources define themselves. Once it has been
> established that a sourced statement is actually a lie, it becomes clear
> cut. We do not write articles to accommodate whoever, when they lie and it
> is clear, it is what we are to report. When people have an opinion where
> you can disagree but where there is no established absence of truth it
> follows that we should provide a NPOV, a neutral point of view.
>
> We may indicate given positions but to deny the truth is to deny for
> instance that slavery was at the basis of many US universities, and and
> and.
>
> When 25% of our public are students learning about the world, we have to
> have our facts straight. We know many things for instance that measles can
> kill and we should never say otherwise. To accommodate that point of view
> is being complicit in the consequences.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 23:37, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> > >
> >
> > It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
> >
> > * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> > decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> > supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the
> references).
> > This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> > notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> > exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> > which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate
> themselves.
> >
> > * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct
> answer
> > (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project
> such
> > as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> > explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> > Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> > because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> > categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> > motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> > sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> > deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> > opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about
> all
> > sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
> >
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> > [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family
> are
> > heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all
> of
> > you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> > thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when
> we
> > meet in person. :)
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> > mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> > is
> > > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> > possible).
> > > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > > things
> > > > I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Chris Keating]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at
> the time of publishing.
> Cheers,
> Peter


I've not seen anyone say that these topics (rather than the general
approach) was decided on in October.

Even if they had been, it would be reasonable to review these things to
avoid appearing unnecessarily partisan.

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