Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia, right, but on the blockchain

[Samuel Klein]

Right.  "Let's take all of the bad takes on how Wikipedia, incentives, and
decentralized production work, pile them onto a raft made of Ether and
magnesium, and float into the future!"


On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:06 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> Advertising-funded Wikipedia that micropays participants from
> advertising revenue, on the Ethereum blockchain! The important bit is
> to give them startup money.
>
> "Lunyr: Decentralized Wikipedia on the blockchain"
> https://medium.com/@cryptojudgement/lunyr-decentralized-wikipedia-on-
> the-blockchain-4072606d5fc5
>
> I have a number of thoughts on this, all negative:
> https://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2017/04/25/wikipedia-
> right-but-on-the-blockchain/
>
> Jimbo wasn't impressed either:
> https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/856060215577464833
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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] Wikitribune!

[Pine W]

On the subject of Jimbo being exempt from term limits, my belief is that
Jimbo's seat should become a standard community-chosen seat, and no one
should be exempt from term limits. I am particularly mindful of the
governance problems that have happened while Jimbo has been on the WMF
Board, and WMF's refusal to have an external inquiry into those problems by
a third party who would make a public report. I am also mindful of WMF's
clashes with the community (such as SuperProtect) that have happened while
Jimbo has been on the WMF Board. Given the totality of the circumstances, I
believe that Jimbo's seat should become a standard community-chosen seat so
that the community has a chance to express its level of confidence in
whether Jimbo should remain on the WMF Board.

Pine
___
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] Wikipedia, right, but on the blockchain

[Andy Cruz y Corro]

Quick, non-neutral comments on the article, abridged for people on the go:

>> Wikipedia is the sixth most visited website in the world. Therefore,
Lunyr sees the potential revenue from advertising on its platform at a very
high level.

Of course, nobody has ever thought of planting ads on a Top 10 internet
site. Get this person a Nobel Prize or something.

>> *An image titled "Wikipedia's advertising revenue potential*

See above

>> Once the platform matures as a knowledge base, real-time contribution of
multi-language data shall be made available.

As opposed to a system that makes data available *as it is going through
this maturation process*

>> ...an economic incentive is proposed to contributors. They are rewarded
for their work and are therefore incentivized to further increase the value
of the ecosystem

Because, as several millennia of civilization shows, people contribute if
and only if there's an economic incentive to do so.

>> Three types of tokens are used in the Lunyr network [One for buying ads
on the network, one for calculating how many ad-tokens contributors
receive, one for participating in dispute resolutions]

I had a rant about complexity and people who despise it, but it doesn't fit
the margins of this email.

>> Roadmap using astronomical terms as Stage names

My inner pedant wonders why "Interstellar" goes before "Supernova", and why
"Nebula" comes before "Cosmic" and "why "Galaxy" is the last stage.

>>In the Lunyr whitepaper, the respective team is listed and after some
research online, I see no reason to doubt the intentions of the team

You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell
lies?

>> Likely, a website like Wikipedia will not cooperate with Lunyr, as their
policy is strictly against advertising on their platform and Lunyr is a
competitor.

Then, why mention it?

>> Users have built some sort of reputation on Wikipedia, which they are
looking to keep and maintain

I firmly believe that if there was an objectively better alternative than
Wikipedia, people would flood it, regardless of their in-site reputation.
See: People who contribute to other wikis

>> I could also see myself as a future contributor to the platform. But for
this, I will most likely monitor the project for a while before starting
any contribution.

"I believe that this is a good boat and will not sink. I wish I could use
it to conquer the seas, but I will monitor it from the shore before I get
in"

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:02 PM, geni  wrote:

> On 26 April 2017 at 00:06, David Gerard  wrote:
> > Advertising-funded Wikipedia that micropays participants from
> > advertising revenue, on the Ethereum blockchain! The important bit is
> > to give them startup money.
> >
> > "Lunyr: Decentralized Wikipedia on the blockchain"
> > https://medium.com/@cryptojudgement/lunyr-decentralized-wikipedia-on-
> the-blockchain-4072606d5fc5
> >
> > I have a number of thoughts on this, all negative:
> > https://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2017/04/25/wikipedia-
> right-but-on-the-blockchain/
> >
> > Jimbo wasn't impressed either:
> > https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/856060215577464833
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
>
>
> Hmm they are taking their user interface from here:
>
> https://www.behance.net/gallery/16219877/Wikipedia-Redesign-Concept
>
>
> Which was the one that happened to be the target of the critique here
>
> http://jgthms.com/wikipedia-redesign.html
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 

Andrés C y C
about.me/andycyca

___
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] Wikitribune!

[Samuel Klein]

Fae.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> because the new company "will compete for staff, stories and
> donations".[1] Will you be resigning from the WMF board of trustees
>

I hope not.  I hardly see a conflict of loyalties; to the extent there is
an overlap of focus, the output of WikiTribune will be available to both WN
and WP, the only current sister projects covering news.


> considering the unique nature of your permanent unelected seat
>

Not permanent, only exempt from term limits. It requires regular
appointment, else sits empty.


> In fact apart from denying the possibility that this was an issue with
> your
>
statement "",

you refused properly to engage further...


Someone refusing to engage further in being badgered?  Never. :-)

I'm not sure what you're missing here.  Ties to Wikia carry COI; this has
come up in public discussions about the Board since the very first slate of
Trustees & is not in question. There's a formal annual COI process for
Trustees, which mandates declaring potential conflicts, and recusing as
appropriate from related decisions.  Those declarations haven't been made
public for anyone (Allowing me to keep the extent of my investment in
Newpedia private.)  In Jimbo's case, conflicts are pretty well hashed out
in public as well.

SJ

P.S.  Nice launch and a most elegant design, Wikitribunnies!
___
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] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Peru User Group

[Chico Venancio]

Congratulations, welcome to the affiliates.

Hope we can work on projects and contribute together.

Hugs from Brazil,

Chico Venancio
User Group Wikimedia Comunity Brasil


Em 26 de abr de 2017 00:51, "Anna Torres"  escreveu:

Welcome to the Wikimedia movement!

Can't wait to start working with you!!

Hugs from Argentina!

2017-04-26 0:25 GMT-03:00 Kirill Lokshin :

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
>  the Wikimedians of Peru User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
> group will work to promote the Wikimedia projects in Peru, and plans to
> support events, such as edit-a-thons, in the region.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedistas_de_Perú
> ___
> 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,
> 




--
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
___
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] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Peru User Group

[Anna Torres]

Welcome to the Wikimedia movement!

Can't wait to start working with you!!

Hugs from Argentina!

2017-04-26 0:25 GMT-03:00 Kirill Lokshin :

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
>  the Wikimedians of Peru User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
> group will work to promote the Wikimedia projects in Peru, and plans to
> support events, such as edit-a-thons, in the region.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedistas_de_Perú
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
___
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] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Peru User Group

[Kirill Lokshin]

Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
 the Wikimedians of Peru User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The
group will work to promote the Wikimedia projects in Peru, and plans to
support events, such as edit-a-thons, in the region.

Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedistas_de_Perú
___
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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Nathan]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When individuals are discredited in this way, your option, you are judging
> these people. That is in my opinion a mistake. You may judge a situation
> and determine because of what you consider your responsibility to either
> accept or no longer accept the existence of a chapter, whatever entity.
> When you judge people and determine that you will not trust them in the
> future to do good. You have a problem.
>
> It is exactly when a group is small that your priority must be in growing
> the group and the quality of their interaction. By dismissing people
> totally you achieve the opposite of what we want; that is representation of
> our movement in the most optimal way.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM



It seems very strange to me to discount the mere possibility that AffComm
may, in the course of its work, discover that specific individuals are
untrustworthy or impossible to work with - or that signals of such a status
must be resolved before collaboration can continue. We don't exist in a
world where entities matter but individuals do not. It would appear that
AffComm is trying very hard not to publicly discredit any individuals. By
senselessly ruling out that this could be true, you're unnecessarily
pushing them to 'out' potential misconduct in a way that won't help the
movement or any future Philippines-based affiliate.
___
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] Wikitribune!

[Fæ]

Hi Jimmy,

Along with the public announcement to the press about Wikitribune, was
the story that you had immediately resigned from The Guardian's board
because the new company "will compete for staff, stories and
donations".[1] Will you be resigning from the WMF board of trustees
because the Wikitribune commercial venture is a conflict of loyalties?

This seems like an issue that the revitalized Wikimedia Foundation
Board Governance Committee should make an independent statement about,
considering the unique nature of your permanent unelected seat as a
WMF trustee?[2]

For the record, it is worth noting that in February 2016,[3] your
conflict of loyalties between being the successful owner of the Wikia
commercial venture, and holding a permanent seat on the board of the
Wikimedia Foundation was raised as a discussion topic on this list.
Wikia has never been publicly declared by the WMF board as a possible
conflict of interest, despite a history of staff migrating directly
from WMF to Wikia, and the obvious reputational benefits to Wikia from
having their owner sitting on the WMF board. In fact apart from
denying the possibility that this was an issue with your statement "I
have always declared, formally and in writing, my role at Wikia. I
have additionally worked to make sure that all board members know
about it, and I have on multiple occasions recused myself from votes
where there could be a perceived or actual conflict of interest", you
refused properly to engage further with discussing this potential
conflict of loyalties in 2016, nor did you supply any evidence of a
formal declaration apart from your email, nor has it ever been
declared in the public minutes of WMF board meetings as an interest if
you have recused from votes or strategic discussion at your meetings
as a trustee; though SJ confirmed that he thought you had declared
this as an interest in past board meetings, presumably this was
mistakenly and unfortunately left out of the minutes each time it
happened.

Thanks,
Fae

Links:
1. "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales exits Guardian board over
conflict of interest with Wikitribune news site"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/25/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-exits-guardian-board-conflict/
2. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee
3. "Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus
WMF" https://lists.gt.net/wiki/foundation/685587

On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
> Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> all of you information about this new initiative early on.
>
> The new project  will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
> bringing together professional journalists and community contributors to
> produce fact-checked, global news stories.  At launch, we'll be using a
> hacked version of wordpress and we'll be evaluating whether that's the
> right tool moving forward.  Wordpress has a lot to
> commend it (free software, mature platform, used by lots of newsrooms,
> active developer ecosystem) but also has some philosophy that's quite
> "top down" in a way.
> (Not many people would think in a wiki way when setting up a newsroom!)
>
> This new initiative, Wikitribune, will be a learning experience - my
> vision is one that I've had a hard time explaining... except to
> Wikimedians who tend to immediately
> get it.
>
> While I am launching this project independent from Wikipedia and the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it is my plan that this new project will work
> alongside Wikimedia in the free knowledge movement. For example, I hope
> that the numerous Wikinews/Wikinoticias/Wikinotizie/etc. communities can
> collaborate with the  Wikitribune community in way that allows both to
> learn and benefit from each other. Additionally, Wikitribune will
> utilize the same Creative Commons license (CC-BY) as other free content
> projects in
> the news space - so they can take the stories written by our
> professional journalists and communities and make use of them.
>
> You can find out more information about Wikitribune at:
> https://www.wikitribune.com
>
> Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer questions!  (But I'm
> quite swamped with everything at the moment so please forgive me if I
> answer in bursts!)
>
> --Jimbo
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Kirill Lokshin]

Hi Craig,

To clarify, when we talk about resolving a compliance issue, what we mean
-- in most cases -- is producing the reports, records, or similar artifacts
that were required by a particular legal agreement, rather than effecting a
change in the status of the affected group.  For example, suppose that a
user group receives a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, but does not
provide a report showing how the funds were spent; the user group would
then be out of compliance, and its official representatives -- who would
have signed the grant agreement -- would become personally ineligible to
create a new user group. However, they could clear their personal records,
so to speak, at some future date by delivering the missing report -- even
if the recognition of the user group in question had been withdrawn in the
meantime.  Obviously, reconstructing missing documentation after the fact
may be easier in some cases than in others.

There could, of course, be cases where the nature of the non-compliance was
such that no resolution would be possible, and the affected individuals
would simply be ineligible to create new user groups until the Affiliations
Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation determined otherwise; but I imagine
that the circumstances of any such case would be quite unusual, and that it
would necessarily be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> On 26 April 2017 at 02:31, Kirill Lokshin 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
> > transition from a chapter to a user group.  In particular, any
> individuals
> > considered to have personal responsibility for an outstanding compliance
> > issue -- which means, generally speaking, the actual signatories of a
> > chapter or grant agreement, but could potentially include every member of
> > the governing board in the case of an incorporated affiliate -- are not
> > eligible to serve as signatories of a new user group agreement until the
> > original compliance issue has been resolved.
> >
>
> On this point, how would this apply in situations such as WMPH's where the
> group has been disendorsed and can no longer move back towards compliance?
> I don't see at this point how for instance folks involved with that chapter
> might "resolve" any issues in order to participate in a user group down the
> road.  Possibly this is a hypothetical situation.
>
> Generally speaking, I do feel that it's probably not helpful for those of
> us who are not familiar with the specific situation at hand to be making
> public statements laying blame or sharing opinions.  Most of us (myself
> included) probably do not know the full story here.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> ___
> 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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Kirill,

On 26 April 2017 at 02:31, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

>
> Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
> transition from a chapter to a user group.  In particular, any individuals
> considered to have personal responsibility for an outstanding compliance
> issue -- which means, generally speaking, the actual signatories of a
> chapter or grant agreement, but could potentially include every member of
> the governing board in the case of an incorporated affiliate -- are not
> eligible to serve as signatories of a new user group agreement until the
> original compliance issue has been resolved.
>

On this point, how would this apply in situations such as WMPH's where the
group has been disendorsed and can no longer move back towards compliance?
I don't see at this point how for instance folks involved with that chapter
might "resolve" any issues in order to participate in a user group down the
road.  Possibly this is a hypothetical situation.

Generally speaking, I do feel that it's probably not helpful for those of
us who are not familiar with the specific situation at hand to be making
public statements laying blame or sharing opinions.  Most of us (myself
included) probably do not know the full story here.

Cheers,
Craig
___
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] Wikipedia, right, but on the blockchain

[geni]

On 26 April 2017 at 00:06, David Gerard  wrote:
> Advertising-funded Wikipedia that micropays participants from
> advertising revenue, on the Ethereum blockchain! The important bit is
> to give them startup money.
>
> "Lunyr: Decentralized Wikipedia on the blockchain"
> https://medium.com/@cryptojudgement/lunyr-decentralized-wikipedia-on-the-blockchain-4072606d5fc5
>
> I have a number of thoughts on this, all negative:
> https://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2017/04/25/wikipedia-right-but-on-the-blockchain/
>
> Jimbo wasn't impressed either:
> https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/856060215577464833
>
>
> - d.
>


Hmm they are taking their user interface from here:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/16219877/Wikipedia-Redesign-Concept


Which was the one that happened to be the target of the critique here

http://jgthms.com/wikipedia-redesign.html


-- 
geni

___
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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Josh Lim]

Hi Kirill,

Nowhere in my last three e-mails did I imply that the process was arbitrary or 
unfair.  I have expressed in both my correspondence to this list AND to my 
private correspondence with the parties involved that it is your prerogative to 
determine our status or not.  That’s fine and dandy, and we’ve come to accept 
that.

But what I will NOT stand for is that you seem to imply that we should be 
thoroughly discredited for our mistakes.  I’m sorry, but that’s the signal I’m 
getting from the opposing side here: that I have no right to contest your 
narrative of what happened because you seem to be in the right and I, by virtue 
of having led Wikimedia Philippines to the ground — something that still weighs 
very heavily on my conscience — should just shut up and accept things as they 
are.

You talk of forgiveness and acceptance for these efforts.  But you seem to 
forget one thing that’s important here: compassion.  We felt we were on the 
right track with getting our house in order, and asked for more time to do so 
when the axe came to fall.  The situation isn’t as black and white as you paint 
it to be: it could’ve been that the revocation notice period wasn’t invoked 
because we were on the right track and that we could use more support in 
getting our affairs in order, but that wasn’t what happened here.  That’s fine 
with us now, but don’t you dare tell me that you respect our efforts now when 
we’ve been telling you this for months.

In any scenario, we will return to compliance.  I’ll make sure myself that we 
do, and there are people at WMPH who intend to make that happen.  But whether 
you will appreciate these efforts is the ball in your court, not ours.

Josh

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:
> 
> Josh,
> 
> We are, as a movement, remarkably forgiving of things like missed
> deadlines, incomplete reports, and other compliance issues that, in a
> different environment, might be regarded with rather more severity.  This
> is, I think, as it should be; we are, for the most part, volunteers --
> often volunteers with little experience in managing formal reporting and
> other elements of organizational compliance -- and we need to be flexible
> and accommodate that if we are to successfully build a diverse and
> inclusive movement.
> 
> At the same time, it's important to keep in mind that this forgiveness is
> not -- and cannot be -- infinite.  Wikimedia Philippines had been directly
> aware of its non-compliance -- both with regard to its obligations under
> the Wikimedia chapter agreement and in other areas -- for more than two
> years; indeed, as Ting has mentioned, addressing that non-compliance was on
> the Affiliation Committee's agenda when you yourself were a member.  It is
> disingenuous for you to imply that the formal suspension notice sent to you
> in September was somehow unexpected or unfair; it was the unfortunate but
> necessary culmination of a lengthy sequence of attempts to address the
> situation, and not the unwarranted and arbitrary demand you've made it out
> to be.
> 
> Nobody -- not the Affiliations Committee, not the Wikimedia Foundation, not
> anyone else -- is disputing the fact that you made efforts to return to
> compliance.  We acknowledge, and appreciate, these efforts; but, at the end
> of the day, they were merely *efforts* -- as you yourself have admitted,
> you ultimately failed to complete the actions that were required of you by
> the deadline.  Unfortunately, since that deadline was mandated by the legal
> notice requirements in your chapter agreement, rather than something
> determined by the Affiliations Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation, there
> was no further relief that we could give you.
> 
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Josh Lim  wrote:
> 
>> First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
>> position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best of
>> our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told that
>> I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
>> ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
>> misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is appalling
>> for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
>> faith.
>> It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
>> compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off to
>> return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
>> Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
>> disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if the
>> idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
>> I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in my
>> last e-mail to this list.  The 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikitribune!

[James Salsman]

I have a question: the news about pending Chinese "supply-side structural
reforms" is almost all about matching supply to demand; for example see
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/22/c_136004899.htm

But if you look at pp. 42 and 63 here, you see the proposaled legislative
reforms are actually about replacing a progressive income tax with a flat
VAT: http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201612/P020161207645765233498.pdf

Does the Wikitribune model have a way to make sure that the truth is being
told? How would it work in this particular instance?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:56 AM David Gerard  wrote:

> On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
> > Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> > to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> > all of you information about this new initiative early on.
>
>
> I was one of the Wikipedians at the hackathon days for this, a few
> weeks ago. (And now it's gone live and I can speak of it in good
> conscience!)
>
> The obvious comparison is Wikinews. Now, Wikinews contributors are
> determined that WikiNews is a good project that deserves to live, and
> they also resent Wikipedia for doing news more effectively as a
> sideline than they do as their main thing and the WMF is unfair and so
> forth. But from the outside view, it's important to note that
> approximately nobody cares about Wikinews and it's a failure in
> impact. Or: if WikiTribune turns out to have the content,
> participation and readership of Wikinews, it will have failed.
>
> The question is why Wikinews didn't take off. There's a sort of myth
> that it's too process-heavy - but the rough WikiTribune rules on the
> day (which may or may not be the ones they go live with) were *pretty
> much the Wikinews process*. (I looked them up on the day.) So that
> isn't the missing magic ingredient.
>
> I suspect one big problem is that journalism anyone's interested in
> reading involves gathering dubious information and assessing how true
> it is likely to be. It's pretty much a process of turning bad sources
> into good ones. Actual reporting tends to work like "I talked to these
> three separate sources, none of whose names I can print, but I'll tell
> you my editor." "Yep, looks likely enough to run." Bam, scoop. It's
> hard to do that in a fully transparent manner (put up the recordings,
> etc) without outing your sources. I spoke to one journalist on the day
> and they concurred.
>
> And that's before you get into there being no such thing as neutral
> news, just news that pretends to be. It's not clear that NPOV is even
> a good idea - selection of stories to cover is a huge bias.
>
> There's also the danger of the other failure mode of citizen
> journalism. The example I brought up on the day was BeforeItsNews.com
> - I won't spoil it for you, go there and see what sort of stories it
> covers and what sort of advertising it runs. It turns out you need
> sane editorial control at some level.
>
> It's possible the missing magical ingredient that will let it take off
> will be paid professional journalists - that this will produce a news
> site that's exciting enough, and not just "me too" stories everyone is
> already running, to get subscribers. But again, it'll need some way
> for them to say "This is the story, I'm not revealing my sources, but
> me and x editor concur it's a news story we'd stand by running."
>
> WordPress is probably the least-worst option for a CMS. MediaWiki is a
> horrible CMS for anything that isn't a reference work. You can do
> almost anything with WordPress if you throw enough money at extension
> development. (Which may or may not be a good idea.)
>
> Anyway, I'll be watching closely and probably diving in at least slightly.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia, right, but on the blockchain

[David Gerard]

Advertising-funded Wikipedia that micropays participants from
advertising revenue, on the Ethereum blockchain! The important bit is
to give them startup money.

"Lunyr: Decentralized Wikipedia on the blockchain"
https://medium.com/@cryptojudgement/lunyr-decentralized-wikipedia-on-the-blockchain-4072606d5fc5

I have a number of thoughts on this, all negative:
https://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2017/04/25/wikipedia-right-but-on-the-blockchain/

Jimbo wasn't impressed either:
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/856060215577464833


- d.

___
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] Wikitribune!

[David Gerard]

On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> all of you information about this new initiative early on.


I was one of the Wikipedians at the hackathon days for this, a few
weeks ago. (And now it's gone live and I can speak of it in good
conscience!)

The obvious comparison is Wikinews. Now, Wikinews contributors are
determined that WikiNews is a good project that deserves to live, and
they also resent Wikipedia for doing news more effectively as a
sideline than they do as their main thing and the WMF is unfair and so
forth. But from the outside view, it's important to note that
approximately nobody cares about Wikinews and it's a failure in
impact. Or: if WikiTribune turns out to have the content,
participation and readership of Wikinews, it will have failed.

The question is why Wikinews didn't take off. There's a sort of myth
that it's too process-heavy - but the rough WikiTribune rules on the
day (which may or may not be the ones they go live with) were *pretty
much the Wikinews process*. (I looked them up on the day.) So that
isn't the missing magic ingredient.

I suspect one big problem is that journalism anyone's interested in
reading involves gathering dubious information and assessing how true
it is likely to be. It's pretty much a process of turning bad sources
into good ones. Actual reporting tends to work like "I talked to these
three separate sources, none of whose names I can print, but I'll tell
you my editor." "Yep, looks likely enough to run." Bam, scoop. It's
hard to do that in a fully transparent manner (put up the recordings,
etc) without outing your sources. I spoke to one journalist on the day
and they concurred.

And that's before you get into there being no such thing as neutral
news, just news that pretends to be. It's not clear that NPOV is even
a good idea - selection of stories to cover is a huge bias.

There's also the danger of the other failure mode of citizen
journalism. The example I brought up on the day was BeforeItsNews.com
- I won't spoil it for you, go there and see what sort of stories it
covers and what sort of advertising it runs. It turns out you need
sane editorial control at some level.

It's possible the missing magical ingredient that will let it take off
will be paid professional journalists - that this will produce a news
site that's exciting enough, and not just "me too" stories everyone is
already running, to get subscribers. But again, it'll need some way
for them to say "This is the story, I'm not revealing my sources, but
me and x editor concur it's a news story we'd stand by running."

WordPress is probably the least-worst option for a CMS. MediaWiki is a
horrible CMS for anything that isn't a reference work. You can do
almost anything with WordPress if you throw enough money at extension
development. (Which may or may not be a good idea.)

Anyway, I'll be watching closely and probably diving in at least slightly.


- d.

___
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] Wikitribune!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Jimmy,

Thank you for your mail to this list; I saw the announcement earlier this
day and read the Wikitribune.com website, watched the video, and also read
a newspaper article. Honestly, I am still not quite sure whether I
understood fully what Wikitribune is supposed to be. :-)

- What is the exact purpose of the site? To produce something, or to judge
something? What is the product? Wikitribune pages with a specific kind of
information or knowledge? A label to be put on news sites?
- "Anyone can flag or fix an article and submit it for review." - Who is
going to start a segment or item on the Wikitribune site? Are people
allowed to create several items about the same issue?
- How to resolve conflicts or differences in opinion? Will there be a
statute or rule codex people can stick to? Will there be specific people in
authority about a segment or the whole site? Will people vote?
- "Supporting Wikitribune means ensuring that that [sic!] journalists only
write articles based on facts that they can verify" - how will Wikitribune
ensure that, force journalists to do that? Will Wikitribune provide a kind
of certificate for news sites?

Kind regards,
Ziko








2017-04-25 23:59 GMT+02:00 Jimmy Wales :

>
> Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> all of you information about this new initiative early on.
>
> The new project  will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
> bringing together professional journalists and community contributors to
> produce fact-checked, global news stories.  At launch, we'll be using a
> hacked version of wordpress and we'll be evaluating whether that's the
> right tool moving forward.  Wordpress has a lot to
> commend it (free software, mature platform, used by lots of newsrooms,
> active developer ecosystem) but also has some philosophy that's quite
> "top down" in a way.
> (Not many people would think in a wiki way when setting up a newsroom!)
>
> This new initiative, Wikitribune, will be a learning experience - my
> vision is one that I've had a hard time explaining... except to
> Wikimedians who tend to immediately
> get it.
>
> While I am launching this project independent from Wikipedia and the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it is my plan that this new project will work
> alongside Wikimedia in the free knowledge movement. For example, I hope
> that the numerous Wikinews/Wikinoticias/Wikinotizie/etc. communities can
> collaborate with the  Wikitribune community in way that allows both to
> learn and benefit from each other. Additionally, Wikitribune will
> utilize the same Creative Commons license (CC-BY) as other free content
> projects in
> the news space - so they can take the stories written by our
> professional journalists and communities and make use of them.
>
> You can find out more information about Wikitribune at:
> https://www.wikitribune.com
>
> Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer questions!  (But I'm
> quite swamped with everything at the moment so please forgive me if I
> answer in bursts!)
>
> --Jimbo
>
> ___
> 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] Wikitribune!

[Jimmy Wales]

Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
all of you information about this new initiative early on.

The new project  will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
bringing together professional journalists and community contributors to
produce fact-checked, global news stories.  At launch, we'll be using a
hacked version of wordpress and we'll be evaluating whether that's the
right tool moving forward.  Wordpress has a lot to
commend it (free software, mature platform, used by lots of newsrooms,
active developer ecosystem) but also has some philosophy that's quite
"top down" in a way.
(Not many people would think in a wiki way when setting up a newsroom!)

This new initiative, Wikitribune, will be a learning experience - my
vision is one that I've had a hard time explaining... except to
Wikimedians who tend to immediately
get it.

While I am launching this project independent from Wikipedia and the
Wikimedia Foundation, it is my plan that this new project will work
alongside Wikimedia in the free knowledge movement. For example, I hope
that the numerous Wikinews/Wikinoticias/Wikinotizie/etc. communities can
collaborate with the  Wikitribune community in way that allows both to
learn and benefit from each other. Additionally, Wikitribune will
utilize the same Creative Commons license (CC-BY) as other free content
projects in
the news space - so they can take the stories written by our
professional journalists and communities and make use of them.

You can find out more information about Wikitribune at:
https://www.wikitribune.com

Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer questions!  (But I'm
quite swamped with everything at the moment so please forgive me if I
answer in bursts!)

--Jimbo

___
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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When individuals are discredited in this way, your option, you are judging
these people. That is in my opinion a mistake. You may judge a situation
and determine because of what you consider your responsibility to either
accept or no longer accept the existence of a chapter, whatever entity.
When you judge people and determine that you will not trust them in the
future to do good. You have a problem.

It is exactly when a group is small that your priority must be in growing
the group and the quality of their interaction. By dismissing people
totally you achieve the opposite of what we want; that is representation of
our movement in the most optimal way.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 April 2017 at 18:31, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> User groups are, indeed, a more "light-weight" model of affiliation, with
> significantly fewer compliance requirements -- at least for groups which
> are unincorporated and do not receive significant grants -- and the
> Affiliations Committee has, in the past, encouraged chapters struggling
> with reporting and similar requirements to consider becoming a user group.
>
> Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
> transition from a chapter to a user group.  In particular, any individuals
> considered to have personal responsibility for an outstanding compliance
> issue -- which means, generally speaking, the actual signatories of a
> chapter or grant agreement, but could potentially include every member of
> the governing board in the case of an incorporated affiliate -- are not
> eligible to serve as signatories of a new user group agreement until the
> original compliance issue has been resolved.  This proves to be a challenge
> when a group is small, or when the existing leadership of a group is
> unwilling to step aside during a transition.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:10 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Running a "user group" is much less bureaucratic overhead. Can WMPH not
> > just rejoin the movement as that? When the capacity to return to chapter
> > status develops the group can than apply for chapter status.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Josh Lim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> > > position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best
> of
> > > our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told
> > that
> > > I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> > > ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> > > misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is
> appalling
> > > for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> > > faith.
> > > It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> > > compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off
> to
> > > return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> > > disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if
> the
> > > idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> > > I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in
> > my
> > > last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> > > things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a
> > number
> > > of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal
> communications
> > > that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity
> > and
> > > asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately
> > made
> > > was for us to lose our status because not everything was met by the
> > > deadline, and that was DESPITE everything that we've done at WMPH to
> meet
> > > the deadline to begin with.
> > > So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to
> > > compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee
> > --
> > > who otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least,
> > > there has to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from
> > the
> > > other side thus far, and I'm here to make sure that people know that we
> > in
> > > fact DID try to return to compliance.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Josh
> > > (P.S.: For those asking, PhilWiki is not affiliated with WMPH.
> PhilWiki
> > > is a splinter group that was founded by a former member of Wikimedia
> > > Philippines, and is largely based in the Bicol Region in southern
> Luzon.
> > > WMPH, meanwhile, was based in Manila and had members nationwide.)
> > > JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> > > Block I1, AB Political Science
> > > Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
> > > Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> > > Quezon 

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

[David Goodman]

Considering the purpose of wikidata, it might make sense for it to have
somewhat different rules also. Unlike Wikipedia, it is a directory

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:56 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The terms of use as explained on meta apply to all projects unless an
> alternative is in place. So sister projects do have similar restrictions on
> undisclosed paid editing.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_
> Activities
>
> Different projects of course have varied degrees of enforcement of the TOU.
> Italian WP did delete the article in question a couple of times
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AvaTrade
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Gabriel Thullen 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree wholeheartedly with Vito. Thank you for bringing up this issue.
> > Wikidata is part of the umbrella group of Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia
> has
> > strict rules governing paid editing (at least in EN), and these rules are
> > not even the same across different language editions.
> > Most of the other projects do not have such rules. Wikimedia Commons, for
> > example. Most of us know what product placement is. Do certain
> contributors
> > earn their living from it? Why don't these "sister" projects have similar
> > restrictions on paid contributions?
> >
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services
> are
> > > "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action.
> > But
> > > too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/
> Q16826370
> > > obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even
> > > attracting some attention on them.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > 2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > >:
> > >
> > > > I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no
> > > harm
> > > > in getting a more universal collection of opinions.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >  Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
> > > companies
> > > > that offer paid editing services
> > > >
> > > > I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid
> > editing
> > > > is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our
> community
> > is
> > > > another. You could add the following question:
> > > > "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key
> positions
> > > > within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter
> > > > spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be
> > > > > done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic
> > > > > survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the
> > last
> > > > > quarter on this list at:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > > > > Periodic_survey_prototype
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community
> > > > > > surrounding
> > > > > > > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an
> > > > > > > outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or
> > > > > > > increased action by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > WMF?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the
> > > > > > discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board
> > wants
> > > > > > to take the
> > > > > position
> > > > > > that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such
> > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might
> be
> > > > > > beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting
> an
> > > > > official
> > > > > > > response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the
> most
> > > > > > > part consisted of about 6 people?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they
> can
> > > > > > initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be
> made.
> > I
> > > > > > already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't
> dig
> > > > > > the hole any deeper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many others, I am sure, would 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Lucas Teles]

For a long time, we saw a few chapters with too little or no activity in
the movement and their recognition was kept in spite of it. I saw that and
it bothered me a little but not so much so I didn't say something about it.
Last year, AffCom started to do what it have to be done (better late than
never) and reviewed its affiliates.

I still don't get what happened in the relation between the chapter and
AffCom that didn't go well. Should AffCom have waited more between the
first warnings and the de-recognition? Should have used better words or
offered any other kind of help? Should have waited any ongoing bureaucratic
process to be finished? Clarifying that will be important to the work of
AffCom.

What I am trying to say is that it seems to be a recent experience for both
sides and I believe that everyone that came here with their comments came
in a good stand trying to express themselves to make this a better process.

As I hope WMPH will be back with more activity in a near future, I also
believe that AffCom will pay attention to any possible mistake on their
part, which sounds like something acceptable to occur since those are
recent initiatives. De-recognition is done. What should be done to keep
valuing the volunteer work of WMPH members and help them promoting
Wikimedia?

Teles

Em ter, 25 de abr de 2017 às 13:32, Kirill Lokshin 
escreveu:

> User groups are, indeed, a more "light-weight" model of affiliation, with
> significantly fewer compliance requirements -- at least for groups which
> are unincorporated and do not receive significant grants -- and the
> Affiliations Committee has, in the past, encouraged chapters struggling
> with reporting and similar requirements to consider becoming a user group.
>
> Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
> transition from a chapter to a user group.  In particular, any individuals
> considered to have personal responsibility for an outstanding compliance
> issue -- which means, generally speaking, the actual signatories of a
> chapter or grant agreement, but could potentially include every member of
> the governing board in the case of an incorporated affiliate -- are not
> eligible to serve as signatories of a new user group agreement until the
> original compliance issue has been resolved.  This proves to be a challenge
> when a group is small, or when the existing leadership of a group is
> unwilling to step aside during a transition.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:10 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Running a "user group" is much less bureaucratic overhead. Can WMPH not
> > just rejoin the movement as that? When the capacity to return to chapter
> > status develops the group can than apply for chapter status.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Josh Lim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> > > position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best
> of
> > > our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told
> > that
> > > I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> > > ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> > > misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is
> appalling
> > > for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> > > faith.
> > > It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> > > compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off
> to
> > > return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> > > disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if
> the
> > > idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> > > I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in
> > my
> > > last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> > > things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a
> > number
> > > of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal
> communications
> > > that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity
> > and
> > > asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately
> > made
> > > was for us to lose our status because not everything was met by the
> > > deadline, and that was DESPITE everything that we've done at WMPH to
> meet
> > > the deadline to begin with.
> > > So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to
> > > compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee
> > --
> > > who otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least,
> > > there has to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from
> > the
> > > other 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

[This is likely my last update here until after the study is done and we
have results to share.]

Thank you for all the responses on and off-list and the work some of you
have already started doing. :) We have requests by 10 more languages
.
At this point, we're going to focus on these requests to get as many of
them as possible ready. The work involves the translation of the content by
those who have volunteered, one-on-one meetings with those who translated
the content to make sure the intents of the research is preserved in the
translated content, computing sampling rates for each language, testing the
surveys and the infrastructure to make sure data collection happens as
planned, reviewing the research questions (now that we have many more
languages, we may have an opportunity to ask and answer a couple of more
questions), and likely more. :)

We are aiming to launch this study early next week. Notices to the
corresponding Village pumps will go out no later than 2 days prior to the
launch.

Thanks to all the volunteers who stepped up to make it happen in their
languages, our collaborators in EPFL, GESIS, and Stanford, and the Reading
team. :)

Best,
Leila


--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
>  wrote:
> > Is there anything that interested volunteers can start translating now?
>
> :)
>
> For some languages, I can confirm in the next 12 hours if we can run
> the surveys in, in which case I'll ping the point of contact (which is
> at the moment, the person who has requested that language) in the
> following page:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_
> Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages
>
> (The table is not complete, I'm working on it now.)
>
> For some other languages, I may have to wait until Monday late evening
> UTC before I can say anything since I may need to brainstorm more with
> the other researchers in the team. (I want to make sure we don't ask
> for help with translation unless we are pretty sure the language is
> feasible for this kind of study).
>
> Leila
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > ___
> > 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] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[James Heilman]

The terms of use as explained on meta apply to all projects unless an
alternative is in place. So sister projects do have similar restrictions on
undisclosed paid editing.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

Different projects of course have varied degrees of enforcement of the TOU.
Italian WP did delete the article in question a couple of times
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AvaTrade

James

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Gabriel Thullen 
wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly with Vito. Thank you for bringing up this issue.
> Wikidata is part of the umbrella group of Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia has
> strict rules governing paid editing (at least in EN), and these rules are
> not even the same across different language editions.
> Most of the other projects do not have such rules. Wikimedia Commons, for
> example. Most of us know what product placement is. Do certain contributors
> earn their living from it? Why don't these "sister" projects have similar
> restrictions on paid contributions?
>
> Gabe
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are
> > "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action.
> But
> > too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370
> > obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even
> > attracting some attention on them.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood  >:
> >
> > > I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no
> > harm
> > > in getting a more universal collection of opinions.
> > > Cheers,
> > >  Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
> > companies
> > > that offer paid editing services
> > >
> > > I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid
> editing
> > > is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community
> is
> > > another. You could add the following question:
> > > "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions
> > > within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter
> > > spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc."
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be
> > > > done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic
> > > > survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the
> last
> > > > quarter on this list at:
> > > >
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > > > Periodic_survey_prototype
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community
> > > > > surrounding
> > > > > > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an
> > > > > > outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or
> > > > > > increased action by
> > > > the
> > > > > > WMF?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the
> > > > > discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board
> wants
> > > > > to take the
> > > > position
> > > > > that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such
> > > > > discussion,
> > > > I
> > > > > imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might be
> > > > > beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an
> > > > official
> > > > > > response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the most
> > > > > > part consisted of about 6 people?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they can
> > > > > initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be made.
> I
> > > > > already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't dig
> > > > > the hole any deeper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many others, I am sure, would rightly complain if the Foundation
> > > > > > unilaterally made decisions in this area.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is possible if WMF were to do something particularly novel, so
> > > > > your sense of caution here is well taken. I would hope that WMF
> > > > > would discuss its plans with the community and have a conversation
> > > > > before actually initiating novel actions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > But please be realistic, this is
> > > > > > a coffee table 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Kirill Lokshin]

User groups are, indeed, a more "light-weight" model of affiliation, with
significantly fewer compliance requirements -- at least for groups which
are unincorporated and do not receive significant grants -- and the
Affiliations Committee has, in the past, encouraged chapters struggling
with reporting and similar requirements to consider becoming a user group.

Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
transition from a chapter to a user group.  In particular, any individuals
considered to have personal responsibility for an outstanding compliance
issue -- which means, generally speaking, the actual signatories of a
chapter or grant agreement, but could potentially include every member of
the governing board in the case of an incorporated affiliate -- are not
eligible to serve as signatories of a new user group agreement until the
original compliance issue has been resolved.  This proves to be a challenge
when a group is small, or when the existing leadership of a group is
unwilling to step aside during a transition.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:10 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> Running a "user group" is much less bureaucratic overhead. Can WMPH not
> just rejoin the movement as that? When the capacity to return to chapter
> status develops the group can than apply for chapter status.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Josh Lim 
> wrote:
>
> > First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> > position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best of
> > our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told
> that
> > I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> > ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> > misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is appalling
> > for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> > faith.
> > It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> > compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off to
> > return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> > disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if the
> > idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> > I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in
> my
> > last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> > things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a
> number
> > of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal communications
> > that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity
> and
> > asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately
> made
> > was for us to lose our status because not everything was met by the
> > deadline, and that was DESPITE everything that we've done at WMPH to meet
> > the deadline to begin with.
> > So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to
> > compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee
> --
> > who otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least,
> > there has to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from
> the
> > other side thus far, and I'm here to make sure that people know that we
> in
> > fact DID try to return to compliance.
> > Thanks,
> > Josh
> > (P.S.: For those asking, PhilWiki is not affiliated with WMPH.  PhilWiki
> > is a splinter group that was founded by a former member of Wikimedia
> > Philippines, and is largely based in the Bicol Region in southern Luzon.
> > WMPH, meanwhile, was based in Manila and had members nationwide.)
> > JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> > Block I1, AB Political Science
> > Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
> > Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> > Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
> >
> > jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (977) 831-7582
> > Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harborhttps://joshlim.me
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 3:58:48 AM PDT, Ting Chen <
> wing.phil...@gmx.de>
> > wrote:Hello Gnangarra,
> >
> > I joined AffCom in 2015, at that time the issue with Wikimedia
> > Philippines was already on the table. The AffCom and the WMF had tried
> > two years to get a settlement without a de-recognition with them.
> > Meanwhile it is 2017, I don't believe Josh could resolve the problem in
> > the last five hours which the entire Wikimedia Philippines was not able
> > to resolve in the past two years. As I said in my other post, I
> > personally don't think it wise to withhold information, especially
> > obviously the people who would be "protected" don't appreciate being
> > protected. But actually on the decision itself if there is something the
> > AffCom 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

>
> I  look at the current processes around affiliates thats made it a longer
> journey for any group to become a chapter, but once there it appears rather
> to not take that way in reverse.  Maybe the process could be reconfigured
> to enable a smoother transition in either direction, and wouldnt such a
> transition be of greater benefit to the movement long term.  It could have
> more been more productive less dramatic to have rebadged WMPH as a user
> group, with a name change to a more regional identity.


exactly,  a very good idea - smoother transitions between the statuses
could have some merit.

My biggest concern is that in all necessary decommissionings and
non-compliance notices we also end up discouraging good-will volunteers -
offering them a less demanding status could definitely be an option to help
them recover and come back.

dj "pundit"
___
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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[James Heilman]

Running a "user group" is much less bureaucratic overhead. Can WMPH not
just rejoin the movement as that? When the capacity to return to chapter
status develops the group can than apply for chapter status.

James

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Josh Lim  wrote:

> First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best of
> our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told that
> I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is appalling
> for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> faith.
> It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off to
> return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if the
> idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in my
> last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a number
> of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal communications
> that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity and
> asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately made
> was for us to lose our status because not everything was met by the
> deadline, and that was DESPITE everything that we've done at WMPH to meet
> the deadline to begin with.
> So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to
> compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee --
> who otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least,
> there has to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from the
> other side thus far, and I'm here to make sure that people know that we in
> fact DID try to return to compliance.
> Thanks,
> Josh
> (P.S.: For those asking, PhilWiki is not affiliated with WMPH.  PhilWiki
> is a splinter group that was founded by a former member of Wikimedia
> Philippines, and is largely based in the Bicol Region in southern Luzon.
> WMPH, meanwhile, was based in Manila and had members nationwide.)
> JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> Block I1, AB Political Science
> Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
> Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>
> jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (977) 831-7582
> Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harborhttps://joshlim.me
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 3:58:48 AM PDT, Ting Chen 
> wrote:Hello Gnangarra,
>
> I joined AffCom in 2015, at that time the issue with Wikimedia
> Philippines was already on the table. The AffCom and the WMF had tried
> two years to get a settlement without a de-recognition with them.
> Meanwhile it is 2017, I don't believe Josh could resolve the problem in
> the last five hours which the entire Wikimedia Philippines was not able
> to resolve in the past two years. As I said in my other post, I
> personally don't think it wise to withhold information, especially
> obviously the people who would be "protected" don't appreciate being
> protected. But actually on the decision itself if there is something the
> AffCom is to be blamed, it is that it took them two years of time to
> make that hard decision. It was overdue, actually.
>
> Greetings
>
> Ting
>
>
> Am 25.04.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Gnangarra:
> > In the original email from Josh he raises some points about still working
> > to address the issues in the five hours between his email and your
> response
> > which have occurred between 9pm and 2am in San Francisco it appears that
> it
> > could not be possible for the WMF to have considered and refuted what was
> > raised, especially to say
> > *"The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further
> details​."  *​I
> > am concerned about how you can speak so categorically after just 5 hours
> > for the WMF when they arent even awake​, especially given it normally
> takes
> > a few days for any official statement from the WMF.
> >
> > I have no problem with affiliates being deregistered but the process
> should
> > be transparent and it should also be fair, no discussion or response to
> > what Josh raised publically is neither fair nor transparent
> >
> > Josh response was that WMPH was accountable you could have least given
> him
> > the chance to clarify the availability of the reporting requirements by
> > providing them
> >
> >
> > On 25 April 2017 at 17:33, Maor Malul  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Gnangarra]

Thank you Kirill that is a lot clearer and answers sufficiently most of my
concerns.

To me this process and these announcements(Philippines and Hong Kong) have
been distasteful in the harshness of the language being used, while such
formal language is necessary and appropriate for the official legal notice
to the individual affiliate. When announcing it to the wider community some
compassion even thanks could be expressed acknowledging the efforts of the
community and its members.  Such consideration shows that those wielding
power do so out of necessity, not just because they can.

Such harsh announcement also reflect negatively on the wider regional
community and do lasting harm the efforts of those who are still there
trying to continue to support our aims and projects.

I  look at the current processes around affiliates thats made it a longer
journey for any group to become a chapter, but once there it appears rather
to not take that way in reverse.  Maybe the process could be reconfigured
to enable a smoother transition in either direction, and wouldnt such a
transition be of greater benefit to the movement long term.  It could have
more been more productive less dramatic to have rebadged WMPH as a user
group, with a name change to a more regional identity.




On 25 April 2017 at 21:10, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> Josh,
>
> We are, as a movement, remarkably forgiving of things like missed
> deadlines, incomplete reports, and other compliance issues that, in a
> different environment, might be regarded with rather more severity.  This
> is, I think, as it should be; we are, for the most part, volunteers --
> often volunteers with little experience in managing formal reporting and
> other elements of organizational compliance -- and we need to be flexible
> and accommodate that if we are to successfully build a diverse and
> inclusive movement.
>
> At the same time, it's important to keep in mind that this forgiveness is
> not -- and cannot be -- infinite.  Wikimedia Philippines had been directly
> aware of its non-compliance -- both with regard to its obligations under
> the Wikimedia chapter agreement and in other areas -- for more than two
> years; indeed, as Ting has mentioned, addressing that non-compliance was on
> the Affiliation Committee's agenda when you yourself were a member.  It is
> disingenuous for you to imply that the formal suspension notice sent to you
> in September was somehow unexpected or unfair; it was the unfortunate but
> necessary culmination of a lengthy sequence of attempts to address the
> situation, and not the unwarranted and arbitrary demand you've made it out
> to be.
>
> Nobody -- not the Affiliations Committee, not the Wikimedia Foundation, not
> anyone else -- is disputing the fact that you made efforts to return to
> compliance.  We acknowledge, and appreciate, these efforts; but, at the end
> of the day, they were merely *efforts* -- as you yourself have admitted,
> you ultimately failed to complete the actions that were required of you by
> the deadline.  Unfortunately, since that deadline was mandated by the legal
> notice requirements in your chapter agreement, rather than something
> determined by the Affiliations Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation, there
> was no further relief that we could give you.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Josh Lim 
> wrote:
>
> > First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> > position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best of
> > our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told
> that
> > I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> > ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> > misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is appalling
> > for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> > faith.
> > It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> > compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off to
> > return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> > disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if the
> > idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> > I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in
> my
> > last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> > things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a
> number
> > of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal communications
> > that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity
> and
> > asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately
> made
> > was for us to lose our status because not everything 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Kirill Lokshin]

Josh,

We are, as a movement, remarkably forgiving of things like missed
deadlines, incomplete reports, and other compliance issues that, in a
different environment, might be regarded with rather more severity.  This
is, I think, as it should be; we are, for the most part, volunteers --
often volunteers with little experience in managing formal reporting and
other elements of organizational compliance -- and we need to be flexible
and accommodate that if we are to successfully build a diverse and
inclusive movement.

At the same time, it's important to keep in mind that this forgiveness is
not -- and cannot be -- infinite.  Wikimedia Philippines had been directly
aware of its non-compliance -- both with regard to its obligations under
the Wikimedia chapter agreement and in other areas -- for more than two
years; indeed, as Ting has mentioned, addressing that non-compliance was on
the Affiliation Committee's agenda when you yourself were a member.  It is
disingenuous for you to imply that the formal suspension notice sent to you
in September was somehow unexpected or unfair; it was the unfortunate but
necessary culmination of a lengthy sequence of attempts to address the
situation, and not the unwarranted and arbitrary demand you've made it out
to be.

Nobody -- not the Affiliations Committee, not the Wikimedia Foundation, not
anyone else -- is disputing the fact that you made efforts to return to
compliance.  We acknowledge, and appreciate, these efforts; but, at the end
of the day, they were merely *efforts* -- as you yourself have admitted,
you ultimately failed to complete the actions that were required of you by
the deadline.  Unfortunately, since that deadline was mandated by the legal
notice requirements in your chapter agreement, rather than something
determined by the Affiliations Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation, there
was no further relief that we could give you.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Josh Lim  wrote:

> First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best of
> our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told that
> I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is appalling
> for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> faith.
> It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off to
> return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if the
> idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in my
> last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a number
> of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal communications
> that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity and
> asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately made
> was for us to lose our status because not everything was met by the
> deadline, and that was DESPITE everything that we've done at WMPH to meet
> the deadline to begin with.
> So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to
> compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee --
> who otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least,
> there has to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from the
> other side thus far, and I'm here to make sure that people know that we in
> fact DID try to return to compliance.
> Thanks,
> Josh
> (P.S.: For those asking, PhilWiki is not affiliated with WMPH.  PhilWiki
> is a splinter group that was founded by a former member of Wikimedia
> Philippines, and is largely based in the Bicol Region in southern Luzon.
> WMPH, meanwhile, was based in Manila and had members nationwide.)
> JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> Block I1, AB Political Science
> Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
> Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>
> jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (977) 831-7582
> Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harborhttps://joshlim.me
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 3:58:48 AM PDT, Ting Chen 
> wrote:Hello Gnangarra,
>
> I joined AffCom in 2015, at that time the issue with Wikimedia
> Philippines was already on the table. The AffCom and the WMF had tried
> two years to get a settlement without a de-recognition with them.
> Meanwhile it is 

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

[Gabriel Thullen]

I agree wholeheartedly with Vito. Thank you for bringing up this issue.
Wikidata is part of the umbrella group of Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia has
strict rules governing paid editing (at least in EN), and these rules are
not even the same across different language editions.
Most of the other projects do not have such rules. Wikimedia Commons, for
example. Most of us know what product placement is. Do certain contributors
earn their living from it? Why don't these "sister" projects have similar
restrictions on paid contributions?

Gabe

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Vi to  wrote:

> We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are
> "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action. But
> too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370
> obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even
> attracting some attention on them.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood :
>
> > I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no
> harm
> > in getting a more universal collection of opinions.
> > Cheers,
> >  Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
> companies
> > that offer paid editing services
> >
> > I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing
> > is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is
> > another. You could add the following question:
> > "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions
> > within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter
> > spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc."
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be
> > > done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic
> > > survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the last
> > > quarter on this list at:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > > Periodic_survey_prototype
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community
> > > > surrounding
> > > > > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an
> > > > > outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or
> > > > > increased action by
> > > the
> > > > > WMF?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the
> > > > discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board wants
> > > > to take the
> > > position
> > > > that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such
> > > > discussion,
> > > I
> > > > imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might be
> > > > beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki
> > > > discussion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an
> > > official
> > > > > response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the most
> > > > > part consisted of about 6 people?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they can
> > > > initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be made. I
> > > > already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't dig
> > > > the hole any deeper.
> > > >
> > > > Many others, I am sure, would rightly complain if the Foundation
> > > > > unilaterally made decisions in this area.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is possible if WMF were to do something particularly novel, so
> > > > your sense of caution here is well taken. I would hope that WMF
> > > > would discuss its plans with the community and have a conversation
> > > > before actually initiating novel actions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But please be realistic, this is
> > > > > a coffee table discussion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have mixed views on this. Wikimedia-l is not a quiet back room
> > > > with
> > > only
> > > > a few people around, but it's true that a consensus here among a
> > > > small number of people who speak up in a particular discussion
> > > > demonstrates a lower level of consensus than an RfC with hundreds of
> > > > participants. It's not clear to me that there is consensus on which
> > > > tools are appropriate
> > > for
> > > > which exact circumstances, and some discussions happen in multiple
> > > venues.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The views expressed here are valid but the right
> > > > >
> > > > thing to do would be to further the conversation on wiki and have a
> > > proper
> > > > > community 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Josh Lim]

First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our position: 
that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best of our ability.  
That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told that I am "misleading" 
the movement by telling people what we've done to get ourselves out of this 
mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on misleading the movement, and 
for people to presume otherwise is appalling for a movement that claims to work 
on a fundamental assumption of good faith.
It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how compliant 
we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off to return to 
compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia Foundation's ideal 
conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to disband entirely, then 
what good is the process in the first place if the idea is to help 
organizations return to compliance?
I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in my last 
e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of things that 
we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a number of items from 
that list, and have conceded in our internal communications that other items 
can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity and asked for more time 
to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately made was for us to lose our 
status because not everything was met by the deadline, and that was DESPITE 
everything that we've done at WMPH to meet the deadline to begin with.
So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to 
compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee -- who 
otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least, there has 
to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from the other side 
thus far, and I'm here to make sure that people know that we in fact DID try to 
return to compliance.
Thanks,
Josh
(P.S.: For those asking, PhilWiki is not affiliated with WMPH.  PhilWiki is a 
splinter group that was founded by a former member of Wikimedia Philippines, 
and is largely based in the Bicol Region in southern Luzon.  WMPH, meanwhile, 
was based in Manila and had members nationwide.)
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Block I1, AB Political Science
Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (977) 831-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harborhttps://joshlim.me
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 3:58:48 AM PDT, Ting Chen  
wrote:Hello Gnangarra,

I joined AffCom in 2015, at that time the issue with Wikimedia 
Philippines was already on the table. The AffCom and the WMF had tried 
two years to get a settlement without a de-recognition with them. 
Meanwhile it is 2017, I don't believe Josh could resolve the problem in 
the last five hours which the entire Wikimedia Philippines was not able 
to resolve in the past two years. As I said in my other post, I 
personally don't think it wise to withhold information, especially 
obviously the people who would be "protected" don't appreciate being 
protected. But actually on the decision itself if there is something the 
AffCom is to be blamed, it is that it took them two years of time to 
make that hard decision. It was overdue, actually.

Greetings

Ting


Am 25.04.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Gnangarra:
> In the original email from Josh he raises some points about still working
> to address the issues in the five hours between his email and your response
> which have occurred between 9pm and 2am in San Francisco it appears that it
> could not be possible for the WMF to have considered and refuted what was
> raised, especially to say
> *"The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details​."  *​I
> am concerned about how you can speak so categorically after just 5 hours
> for the WMF when they arent even awake​, especially given it normally takes
> a few days for any official statement from the WMF.
>
> I have no problem with affiliates being deregistered but the process should
> be transparent and it should also be fair, no discussion or response to
> what Josh raised publically is neither fair nor transparent
>
> Josh response was that WMPH was accountable you could have least given him
> the chance to clarify the availability of the reporting requirements by
> providing them
>
>
> On 25 April 2017 at 17:33, Maor Malul  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The wikimedians from the Phillippines that attended the WMCON are /not
>> /members of WMPH but of PhilWiki Community [1], which is a completely
>> different Wikimedia affiliate.
>>
>> If you read the original e-mail sent, the governance issues started to
>> appear in 2014, and the chapter was notified back then. More issues
>> accumulated over the time, and a solution was indeed searched for. Please
>> elaborate on what 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Maor Malul]

The de-recognition notice was sent on February 26 to WMPH. If you read the 
original email sent, it clearly says that on September 9, 2016, Wikimedia 
Philippines was notified of their suspension as a Wikimedia affiliate, and 
given a deadline to correct a list of issues, which was not met. The chapter's 
recognition was not renewed after March 1, 2017. We're just 5 days before May. 
Please read well the original email.

Honestly, do you really think the chapter was de-recognised all of a sudden, 
without a chance to correct the issues raised? Do you really think there was no 
communication between September 2016 and March 1, 2017?

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Gnangarra" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Cc: "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" 

Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia 
Philippines
Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 1:43 PM

In the original email from Josh he raises some points about still working to 
address the issues in the five hours between his email and your response which 
have occurred between 9pm and 2am in San Francisco it appears that it could not 
be possible for the WMF to have considered and refuted what was raised, 
especially to say "The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further 
details​."
   ​I am concerned about how you can speak so categorically after just 5 hours 
for the WMF when they arent even awake​, especially given it normally takes a 
few days for any official statement from the WMF. 

I have no problem with affiliates being deregistered but the process should be 
transparent and it should also be fair, no discussion or response to what Josh 
raised publically is neither fair nor transparent 

Josh response was that WMPH was accountable you could have least given him the 
chance to clarify the availability of the reporting requirements by providing 
them



On 25 April 2017 at 17:33, Maor Malul  wrote:
Hello,



The wikimedians from the Phillippines that attended the WMCON are /not /members 
of WMPH but of PhilWiki Community [1], which is a completely different 
Wikimedia affiliate.



If you read the original e-mail sent, the governance issues started to appear 
in 2014, and the chapter was notified back then. More issues accumulated over 
the time, and a solution was indeed searched for. Please elaborate on what 
"substantive discussion, consultation or investigation" means.





1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PhilWiki_Community





El 25/04/2017 a las 12:16 p.m., Gnangarra escribió:


It appears to me as this discussion has caused some confusion and it should be 
clarified as I know that the Philippines had two members at the recent 
Wikimedia Conference in Berlin arent there reporting requirements attached to 
eligibility requirements. They are also part of the group organising the ESEA 
conference in February 2018 along with a number of other affiliates in the 
region. Those of us who have committed people, time and other resources need 
some clarity as well



While there appears to be some confusion here, Affcom and WMF should at least 
take some time to clarify the issues especially given its currently 2am in San 
Francisco and it was only 9pm when Joshes email was sent. To me it appears as 
if no substantive discussion, consultation or investigation of Joshes claims 
could have taken place to warrant such a harsh response so quickly.



On 25 April 2017 at 16:05, Maor Malul > wrote:



    Hello Josh,



    The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further

    details of the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt

    the movement and the reputation of the people involved. Please,

    avoid misleading and adding drama to this situation -which is

    already difficult, and damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was

    given very specific recommendations of what do and what not to do,

    but decided to go its own way.



    M.





    El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:



        If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being

        “accountable”, then I have serious doubts about how this

        process will remain sustainable.



        I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating

        for everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself

        composed throughout the entire process, but at this point I

        simply cannot.



        I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than

        others.  Every organization does.  But I will not allow the

        work that I’ve dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown

        out the window because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best

        of our ability, we WERE accountable to our community and to

        the movement.  And I, frankly, feet that we were as

        accountable as we 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Ting Chen]

Hello Gnangarra,

I joined AffCom in 2015, at that time the issue with Wikimedia 
Philippines was already on the table. The AffCom and the WMF had tried 
two years to get a settlement without a de-recognition with them. 
Meanwhile it is 2017, I don't believe Josh could resolve the problem in 
the last five hours which the entire Wikimedia Philippines was not able 
to resolve in the past two years. As I said in my other post, I 
personally don't think it wise to withhold information, especially 
obviously the people who would be "protected" don't appreciate being 
protected. But actually on the decision itself if there is something the 
AffCom is to be blamed, it is that it took them two years of time to 
make that hard decision. It was overdue, actually.


Greetings

Ting


Am 25.04.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Gnangarra:

In the original email from Josh he raises some points about still working
to address the issues in the five hours between his email and your response
which have occurred between 9pm and 2am in San Francisco it appears that it
could not be possible for the WMF to have considered and refuted what was
raised, especially to say
*"The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details​."   *​I
am concerned about how you can speak so categorically after just 5 hours
for the WMF when they arent even awake​, especially given it normally takes
a few days for any official statement from the WMF.

I have no problem with affiliates being deregistered but the process should
be transparent and it should also be fair, no discussion or response to
what Josh raised publically is neither fair nor transparent

Josh response was that WMPH was accountable you could have least given him
the chance to clarify the availability of the reporting requirements by
providing them


On 25 April 2017 at 17:33, Maor Malul  wrote:


Hello,

The wikimedians from the Phillippines that attended the WMCON are /not
/members of WMPH but of PhilWiki Community [1], which is a completely
different Wikimedia affiliate.

If you read the original e-mail sent, the governance issues started to
appear in 2014, and the chapter was notified back then. More issues
accumulated over the time, and a solution was indeed searched for. Please
elaborate on what "substantive discussion, consultation or investigation"
means.


1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PhilWiki_Community


El 25/04/2017 a las 12:16 p.m., Gnangarra escribió:


It appears to me as this discussion has caused some confusion and it
should be clarified as I know that the Philippines had two members at the
recent Wikimedia Conference in Berlin arent there reporting requirements
attached to eligibility requirements. They are also part of the group
organising the ESEA conference in February 2018 along with a number of
other affiliates in the region. Those of us who have committed people, time
and other resources need some clarity as well

While there appears to be some confusion here, Affcom and WMF should at
least take some time to clarify the issues especially given its currently
2am in San Francisco and it was only 9pm when Joshes email was sent. To me
it appears as if no substantive discussion, consultation or investigation
of Joshes claims could have taken place to warrant such a harsh response so
quickly.

On 25 April 2017 at 16:05, Maor Malul  wrote:

 Hello Josh,

 The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further
 details of the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt
 the movement and the reputation of the people involved. Please,
 avoid misleading and adding drama to this situation -which is
 already difficult, and damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was
 given very specific recommendations of what do and what not to do,
 but decided to go its own way.

 M.


 El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:

 If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being
 “accountable”, then I have serious doubts about how this
 process will remain sustainable.

 I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating
 for everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself
 composed throughout the entire process, but at this point I
 simply cannot.

 I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than
 others.  Every organization does.  But I will not allow the
 work that I’ve dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown
 out the window because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best
 of our ability, we WERE accountable to our community and to
 the movement.  And I, frankly, feet that we were as
 accountable as we could’ve been.

 You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this
 entire process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot,
 process the grief this entire process has brought upon
 Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Gnangarra]

In the original email from Josh he raises some points about still working
to address the issues in the five hours between his email and your response
which have occurred between 9pm and 2am in San Francisco it appears that it
could not be possible for the WMF to have considered and refuted what was
raised, especially to say
*"The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details​."   *​I
am concerned about how you can speak so categorically after just 5 hours
for the WMF when they arent even awake​, especially given it normally takes
a few days for any official statement from the WMF.

I have no problem with affiliates being deregistered but the process should
be transparent and it should also be fair, no discussion or response to
what Josh raised publically is neither fair nor transparent

Josh response was that WMPH was accountable you could have least given him
the chance to clarify the availability of the reporting requirements by
providing them


On 25 April 2017 at 17:33, Maor Malul  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The wikimedians from the Phillippines that attended the WMCON are /not
> /members of WMPH but of PhilWiki Community [1], which is a completely
> different Wikimedia affiliate.
>
> If you read the original e-mail sent, the governance issues started to
> appear in 2014, and the chapter was notified back then. More issues
> accumulated over the time, and a solution was indeed searched for. Please
> elaborate on what "substantive discussion, consultation or investigation"
> means.
>
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PhilWiki_Community
>
>
> El 25/04/2017 a las 12:16 p.m., Gnangarra escribió:
>
>> It appears to me as this discussion has caused some confusion and it
>> should be clarified as I know that the Philippines had two members at the
>> recent Wikimedia Conference in Berlin arent there reporting requirements
>> attached to eligibility requirements. They are also part of the group
>> organising the ESEA conference in February 2018 along with a number of
>> other affiliates in the region. Those of us who have committed people, time
>> and other resources need some clarity as well
>>
>> While there appears to be some confusion here, Affcom and WMF should at
>> least take some time to clarify the issues especially given its currently
>> 2am in San Francisco and it was only 9pm when Joshes email was sent. To me
>> it appears as if no substantive discussion, consultation or investigation
>> of Joshes claims could have taken place to warrant such a harsh response so
>> quickly.
>>
>> On 25 April 2017 at 16:05, Maor Malul  mao...@zoho.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Josh,
>>
>> The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further
>> details of the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt
>> the movement and the reputation of the people involved. Please,
>> avoid misleading and adding drama to this situation -which is
>> already difficult, and damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was
>> given very specific recommendations of what do and what not to do,
>> but decided to go its own way.
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>> El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
>>
>> If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being
>> “accountable”, then I have serious doubts about how this
>> process will remain sustainable.
>>
>> I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating
>> for everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself
>> composed throughout the entire process, but at this point I
>> simply cannot.
>>
>> I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than
>> others.  Every organization does.  But I will not allow the
>> work that I’ve dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown
>> out the window because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best
>> of our ability, we WERE accountable to our community and to
>> the movement.  And I, frankly, feet that we were as
>> accountable as we could’ve been.
>>
>> You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this
>> entire process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot,
>> process the grief this entire process has brought upon
>> Wikimedia Philippines, and especially myself.  I will try to
>> be optimistic about the future, as people have been telling me
>> to do, but at this point in time, at least have some respect
>> for the work that we’ve done over the last six years.  That’s
>> really all I’m asking for at this point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman
>> 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of
>> accountability. Hopefully 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Ilario Valdelli]

I think that the biggest misunderstanding is in the acronym because in the
page the Phil-community uses the acronym of WMPH which seems more connected
to WM Philippines instead of PH-WC.

Kind regards

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Maor Malul  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The wikimedians from the Phillippines that attended the WMCON are /not
> /members of WMPH but of PhilWiki Community [1], which is a completely
> different Wikimedia affiliate.
>
> If you read the original e-mail sent, the governance issues started to
> appear in 2014, and the chapter was notified back then. More issues
> accumulated over the time, and a solution was indeed searched for. Please
> elaborate on what "substantive discussion, consultation or investigation"
> means.
>
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PhilWiki_Community
>
>
> El 25/04/2017 a las 12:16 p.m., Gnangarra escribió:
>
>> It appears to me as this discussion has caused some confusion and it
>> should be clarified as I know that the Philippines had two members at the
>> recent Wikimedia Conference in Berlin arent there reporting requirements
>> attached to eligibility requirements. They are also part of the group
>> organising the ESEA conference in February 2018 along with a number of
>> other affiliates in the region. Those of us who have committed people, time
>> and other resources need some clarity as well
>>
>> While there appears to be some confusion here, Affcom and WMF should at
>> least take some time to clarify the issues especially given its currently
>> 2am in San Francisco and it was only 9pm when Joshes email was sent. To me
>> it appears as if no substantive discussion, consultation or investigation
>> of Joshes claims could have taken place to warrant such a harsh response so
>> quickly.
>>
>> On 25 April 2017 at 16:05, Maor Malul  mao...@zoho.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Josh,
>>
>> The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further
>> details of the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt
>> the movement and the reputation of the people involved. Please,
>> avoid misleading and adding drama to this situation -which is
>> already difficult, and damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was
>> given very specific recommendations of what do and what not to do,
>> but decided to go its own way.
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>> El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
>>
>> If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being
>> “accountable”, then I have serious doubts about how this
>> process will remain sustainable.
>>
>> I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating
>> for everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself
>> composed throughout the entire process, but at this point I
>> simply cannot.
>>
>> I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than
>> others.  Every organization does.  But I will not allow the
>> work that I’ve dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown
>> out the window because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best
>> of our ability, we WERE accountable to our community and to
>> the movement.  And I, frankly, feet that we were as
>> accountable as we could’ve been.
>>
>> You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this
>> entire process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot,
>> process the grief this entire process has brought upon
>> Wikimedia Philippines, and especially myself.  I will try to
>> be optimistic about the future, as people have been telling me
>> to do, but at this point in time, at least have some respect
>> for the work that we’ve done over the last six years.  That’s
>> really all I’m asking for at this point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman
>> 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of
>> accountability. Hopefully this will encourage groups in
>> the Philippines to become more active again.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia
>> Israel> 
>> >
>> >>wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Maor for the update.
>>
>> We usually love to see our movement expend and welcome
>> recognition of new
>> organizations, but I strongly believe that we
>> continuously need
>> to check
>> and evaluate our current organizations.
>>
>> Our brand, name 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Maor Malul]

Thanks Ting,

It was indeed a hard decision, but like you say, disclosing details may 
avoid rumours and drama, which probably cause more damage to the 
movement. We'll raise your observation with the WMF and see if that can 
implemented. Anyway, I also hope no more affiliates have to be 
de-recognized, because with each one of them gone, is a punch in the 
face of the movement.


M.


El 25/04/2017 a las 12:12 p.m., Ting Chen escribió:

Hello dear all,

we try, and some times try very very hard to be nice and to protect 
other people. But the world is some times not nice and some times 
really really bad things happen. Just for the next time (and there 
will be next times coming), my suggestion for the WMF and also for 
other committees that will have to make hard decisions to consider: It 
may be more helpful to decide to disclose details than be protective 
to individuals. It may also be helpful for other organizations to 
avoid make similar errors. Not decide to disclose is probably less 
helpful.


Just as a suggestion for thinking.

Greetings

Ting



Am 25.04.2017 um 09:05 schrieb Maor Malul:

Hello Josh,

The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details 
of the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt the 
movement and the reputation of the people involved. Please, avoid 
misleading and adding drama to this situation -which is already 
difficult, and damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was given very 
specific recommendations of what do and what not to do, but decided 
to go its own way.


M.


El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being “accountable”, 
then I have serious doubts about how this process will remain 
sustainable.


I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating for 
everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself composed 
throughout the entire process, but at this point I simply cannot.


I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than others. 
 Every organization does.  But I will not allow the work that I’ve 
dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown out the window 
because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best of our ability, we 
WERE accountable to our community and to the movement.  And I, 
frankly, feet that we were as accountable as we could’ve been.


You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this entire 
process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot, process the 
grief this entire process has brought upon Wikimedia Philippines, 
and especially myself.  I will try to be optimistic about the 
future, as people have been telling me to do, but at this point in 
time, at least have some respect for the work that we’ve done over 
the last six years.  That’s really all I’m asking for at this point.


Thanks,

Josh

On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman > wrote:


I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of accountability. 
Hopefully this will encourage groups in the Philippines to become 
more active again.


James

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia 
Israel>wrote:


Thank you Maor for the update.

We usually love to see our movement expend and welcome
recognition of new
organizations, but I strongly believe that we continuously need
to check
and evaluate our current organizations.

Our brand, name and reputation are part of our core assets - and
while it's
not an easy step, I appreciate Affcom efforts not only to
recognize new
ones but also to de-recognize organizations that are not longer
active or
non-compliance with our movement requirements.

Few weeks ago in Berlin we had a first meeting to start discuses
what is a
"movement accountability" and how we evaluate organizations who
operate
outside of the FDC process and I believe Affcom have a
significant part in
it.






*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-54-5878078
 |http://www.wikimedia.org.il

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely
share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Maor Malul > wrote:

> *
>
> Dear all,
>
> *
>
> **
>
> *Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
organization,
> or user group - allows an independent group to officially use
the Wikimedia
> name to further the Wikimedia mission, with certain duties and
> responsibilities.  While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to
the basic
> compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the
Wikimedia
> Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the
exceptional cases
> when a 

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

[Vi to]

We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are
"easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action. But
too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370
obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even
attracting some attention on them.

Vito

2017-04-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood :

> I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no harm
> in getting a more universal collection of opinions.
> Cheers,
>  Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen
> Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:50 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies
> that offer paid editing services
>
> I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing
> is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is
> another. You could add the following question:
> "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions
> within the Wikimedia movement such as chapter board, official chapter
> spokesperson, affiliate organization board, etc."
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be
> > done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic
> > survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the last
> > quarter on this list at:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > Periodic_survey_prototype
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community
> > > surrounding
> > > > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an
> > > > outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or
> > > > increased action by
> > the
> > > > WMF?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the
> > > discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If WMF Legal or the WMF Board wants
> > > to take the
> > position
> > > that it would like to see a community RfC or some other such
> > > discussion,
> > I
> > > imagine that such can be arranged, and I can see how that might be
> > > beneficial. Of course, anyone is free to initiate such an on-wiki
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an
> > official
> > > > response from Legal to a list whose conversation has for the most
> > > > part consisted of about 6 people?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure why you would be telling other people to whom they can
> > > initiate requests and the conditions under which they can be made. I
> > > already have a dim view of WMF's customer service; please don't dig
> > > the hole any deeper.
> > >
> > > Many others, I am sure, would rightly complain if the Foundation
> > > > unilaterally made decisions in this area.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is possible if WMF were to do something particularly novel, so
> > > your sense of caution here is well taken. I would hope that WMF
> > > would discuss its plans with the community and have a conversation
> > > before actually initiating novel actions.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But please be realistic, this is
> > > > a coffee table discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have mixed views on this. Wikimedia-l is not a quiet back room
> > > with
> > only
> > > a few people around, but it's true that a consensus here among a
> > > small number of people who speak up in a particular discussion
> > > demonstrates a lower level of consensus than an RfC with hundreds of
> > > participants. It's not clear to me that there is consensus on which
> > > tools are appropriate
> > for
> > > which exact circumstances, and some discussions happen in multiple
> > venues.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The views expressed here are valid but the right
> > > >
> > > thing to do would be to further the conversation on wiki and have a
> > proper
> > > > community conversation.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think that there is a single definition of a "proper"
> > > community conversation.
> > >
> > > I have no objection to having an on-wiki RfC (and I can see how a
> > > sophisticated and well-attended one might produce detailed guidance
> > > that would be helpful), but neither do I want this thread to be
> trivialized.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ___
> > > 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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Maor Malul]

Hello,

The wikimedians from the Phillippines that attended the WMCON are /not 
/members of WMPH but of PhilWiki Community [1], which is a completely 
different Wikimedia affiliate.


If you read the original e-mail sent, the governance issues started to 
appear in 2014, and the chapter was notified back then. More issues 
accumulated over the time, and a solution was indeed searched for. 
Please elaborate on what "substantive discussion, consultation or 
investigation" means.



1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PhilWiki_Community


El 25/04/2017 a las 12:16 p.m., Gnangarra escribió:
It appears to me as this discussion has caused some confusion and it 
should be clarified as I know that the Philippines had two members at 
the recent Wikimedia Conference in Berlin arent there reporting 
requirements attached to eligibility requirements. They are also part 
of the group organising the ESEA conference in February 2018 along 
with a number of other affiliates in the region. Those of us who have 
committed people, time and other resources need some clarity as well


While there appears to be some confusion here, Affcom and WMF should 
at least take some time to clarify the issues especially given its 
currently 2am in San Francisco and it was only 9pm when Joshes email 
was sent. To me it appears as if no substantive discussion, 
consultation or investigation of Joshes claims could have taken place 
to warrant such a harsh response so quickly.


On 25 April 2017 at 16:05, Maor Malul > wrote:


Hello Josh,

The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further
details of the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt
the movement and the reputation of the people involved. Please,
avoid misleading and adding drama to this situation -which is
already difficult, and damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was
given very specific recommendations of what do and what not to do,
but decided to go its own way.

M.


El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:

If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being
“accountable”, then I have serious doubts about how this
process will remain sustainable.

I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating
for everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself
composed throughout the entire process, but at this point I
simply cannot.

I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than
others.  Every organization does.  But I will not allow the
work that I’ve dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown
out the window because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best
of our ability, we WERE accountable to our community and to
the movement.  And I, frankly, feet that we were as
accountable as we could’ve been.

You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this
entire process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot,
process the grief this entire process has brought upon
Wikimedia Philippines, and especially myself.  I will try to
be optimistic about the future, as people have been telling me
to do, but at this point in time, at least have some respect
for the work that we’ve done over the last six years.  That’s
really all I’m asking for at this point.

Thanks,

Josh

On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman

>> wrote:

I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of
accountability. Hopefully this will encourage groups in
the Philippines to become more active again.

James

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia
Israel
>>wrote:

Thank you Maor for the update.

We usually love to see our movement expend and welcome
recognition of new
organizations, but I strongly believe that we
continuously need
to check
and evaluate our current organizations.

Our brand, name and reputation are part of our core
assets - and
while it's
not an easy step, I appreciate Affcom efforts not only to
recognize new
ones but also to de-recognize organizations that are
not longer
active or
non-compliance with our movement requirements.

Few weeks ago in Berlin we had a first meeting to
start discuses
what is a
"movement 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Gnangarra]

It appears to me as this discussion has caused some confusion and it should
be clarified as I know that the Philippines had two members at the recent
Wikimedia Conference in Berlin arent there reporting requirements attached
to eligibility requirements. They are also part of the group organising the
ESEA conference in February 2018 along with a number of other affiliates in
the region. Those of us who have committed people, time and other resources
need some clarity as well

While there appears to be some confusion here, Affcom and WMF should at
least take some time to clarify the issues especially given its currently
2am in San Francisco and it was only 9pm when Joshes email was sent. To me
it appears as if no substantive discussion, consultation or investigation
of Joshes claims could have taken place to warrant such a harsh response so
quickly.

On 25 April 2017 at 16:05, Maor Malul  wrote:

> Hello Josh,
>
> The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details of the
> very serious governance issues in order not to hurt the movement and the
> reputation of the people involved. Please, avoid misleading and adding
> drama to this situation -which is already difficult, and damages the
> movement as a whole. WMPH was given very specific recommendations of what
> do and what not to do, but decided to go its own way.
>
> M.
>
>
> El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
>
>> If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being “accountable”, then I
>> have serious doubts about how this process will remain sustainable.
>>
>> I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating for
>> everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself composed throughout the
>> entire process, but at this point I simply cannot.
>>
>> I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than others.  Every
>> organization does.  But I will not allow the work that I’ve dedicated over
>> a decade of my life to be thrown out the window because we weren’t
>> “accountable”.  To the best of our ability, we WERE accountable to our
>> community and to the movement.  And I, frankly, feet that we were as
>> accountable as we could’ve been.
>>
>> You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this entire
>> process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot, process the grief this
>> entire process has brought upon Wikimedia Philippines, and especially
>> myself.  I will try to be optimistic about the future, as people have been
>> telling me to do, but at this point in time, at least have some respect for
>> the work that we’ve done over the last six years.  That’s really all I’m
>> asking for at this point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman > jmh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of accountability.
>>> Hopefully this will encourage groups in the Philippines to become more
>>> active again.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel<
>>> it...@wikimedia.org.il >wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Maor for the update.
>>>
>>> We usually love to see our movement expend and welcome
>>> recognition of new
>>> organizations, but I strongly believe that we continuously need
>>> to check
>>> and evaluate our current organizations.
>>>
>>> Our brand, name and reputation are part of our core assets - and
>>> while it's
>>> not an easy step, I appreciate Affcom efforts not only to
>>> recognize new
>>> ones but also to de-recognize organizations that are not longer
>>> active or
>>> non-compliance with our movement requirements.
>>>
>>> Few weeks ago in Berlin we had a first meeting to start discuses
>>> what is a
>>> "movement accountability" and how we evaluate organizations who
>>> operate
>>> outside of the FDC process and I believe Affcom have a
>>> significant part in
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
>>> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
>>> +972-54-5878078
>>>  |http://www.wikimedia.org.il
>>> 
>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely
>>> share in the
>>> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Maor Malul >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> > Dear all,
>>> >
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> > **
>>> >
>>> > *Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
>>> organization,
>>> > or user group - allows an independent group to officially use
>>> the Wikimedia
>>> > name to further the Wikimedia mission, with certain duties and
>>> > responsibilities.  While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to
>>> the basic
>>> > compliance standards set forth in their agreements with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Ting Chen]

Hello dear all,

we try, and some times try very very hard to be nice and to protect 
other people. But the world is some times not nice and some times really 
really bad things happen. Just for the next time (and there will be next 
times coming), my suggestion for the WMF and also for other committees 
that will have to make hard decisions to consider: It may be more 
helpful to decide to disclose details than be protective to individuals. 
It may also be helpful for other organizations to avoid make similar 
errors. Not decide to disclose is probably less helpful.


Just as a suggestion for thinking.

Greetings

Ting



Am 25.04.2017 um 09:05 schrieb Maor Malul:

Hello Josh,

The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details of 
the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt the movement 
and the reputation of the people involved. Please, avoid misleading 
and adding drama to this situation -which is already difficult, and 
damages the movement as a whole. WMPH was given very specific 
recommendations of what do and what not to do, but decided to go its 
own way.


M.


El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being “accountable”, 
then I have serious doubts about how this process will remain 
sustainable.


I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating for 
everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself composed 
throughout the entire process, but at this point I simply cannot.


I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than others. 
 Every organization does.  But I will not allow the work that I’ve 
dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown out the window 
because we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best of our ability, we 
WERE accountable to our community and to the movement.  And I, 
frankly, feet that we were as accountable as we could’ve been.


You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this entire 
process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot, process the 
grief this entire process has brought upon Wikimedia Philippines, and 
especially myself.  I will try to be optimistic about the future, as 
people have been telling me to do, but at this point in time, at 
least have some respect for the work that we’ve done over the last 
six years.  That’s really all I’m asking for at this point.


Thanks,

Josh

On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman > wrote:


I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of accountability. 
Hopefully this will encourage groups in the Philippines to become 
more active again.


James

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia 
Israel>wrote:


Thank you Maor for the update.

We usually love to see our movement expend and welcome
recognition of new
organizations, but I strongly believe that we continuously need
to check
and evaluate our current organizations.

Our brand, name and reputation are part of our core assets - and
while it's
not an easy step, I appreciate Affcom efforts not only to
recognize new
ones but also to de-recognize organizations that are not longer
active or
non-compliance with our movement requirements.

Few weeks ago in Berlin we had a first meeting to start discuses
what is a
"movement accountability" and how we evaluate organizations who
operate
outside of the FDC process and I believe Affcom have a
significant part in
it.






*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-54-5878078
 |http://www.wikimedia.org.il

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely
share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Maor Malul > wrote:

> *
>
> Dear all,
>
> *
>
> **
>
> *Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
organization,
> or user group - allows an independent group to officially use
the Wikimedia
> name to further the Wikimedia mission, with certain duties and
> responsibilities.  While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to
the basic
> compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the
Wikimedia
> Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the
exceptional cases
> when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet minimum compliance
standards and
> their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a
risk to the
> Wikimedia movement.*
>
> *
>
> On September 9, 2016, Wikimedia Philippines was notified of their
> suspension as a Wikimedia affiliate due to long standing and
serious
> governance issues, as well as non-compliance with reporting
requirements
> which 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Maor Malul]

Hello Josh,

The WMF and the AffCom have decided not to disclose further details of 
the very serious governance issues in order not to hurt the movement and 
the reputation of the people involved. Please, avoid misleading and 
adding drama to this situation -which is already difficult, and damages 
the movement as a whole. WMPH was given very specific recommendations of 
what do and what not to do, but decided to go its own way.


M.


El 25/04/2017 a las 06:17 a.m., Josh Lim escribió:
If you folks seriously think that we weren’t being “accountable”, then 
I have serious doubts about how this process will remain sustainable.


I’m sorry, but this process has been exceedingly demotivating for 
everyone involved.  I’ve been trying to keep myself composed 
throughout the entire process, but at this point I simply cannot.


I will gladly admit that we’ve made mistakes, us more than others. 
 Every organization does.  But I will not allow the work that I’ve 
dedicated over a decade of my life to be thrown out the window because 
we weren’t “accountable”.  To the best of our ability, we WERE 
accountable to our community and to the movement.  And I, frankly, 
feet that we were as accountable as we could’ve been.


You may all want to know why I’ve been silent through this entire 
process.  It’s because I cannot, and I still cannot, process the grief 
this entire process has brought upon Wikimedia Philippines, and 
especially myself.  I will try to be optimistic about the future, as 
people have been telling me to do, but at this point in time, at least 
have some respect for the work that we’ve done over the last six 
years.  That’s really all I’m asking for at this point.


Thanks,

Josh

On Apr 23, 2017, at 9:41 PM, James Heilman > wrote:


I second Itzik's comments. We need some degree of accountability. 
Hopefully this will encourage groups in the Philippines to become 
more active again.


James

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia 
Israel>wrote:


Thank you Maor for the update.

We usually love to see our movement expend and welcome
recognition of new
organizations, but I strongly believe that we continuously need
to check
and evaluate our current organizations.

Our brand, name and reputation are part of our core assets - and
while it's
not an easy step, I appreciate Affcom efforts not only to
recognize new
ones but also to de-recognize organizations that are not longer
active or
non-compliance with our movement requirements.

Few weeks ago in Berlin we had a first meeting to start discuses
what is a
"movement accountability" and how we evaluate organizations who
operate
outside of the FDC process and I believe Affcom have a
significant part in
it.






*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-54-5878078
 |http://www.wikimedia.org.il

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely
share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Maor Malul > wrote:

> *
>
> Dear all,
>
> *
>
> **
>
> *Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
organization,
> or user group - allows an independent group to officially use
the Wikimedia
> name to further the Wikimedia mission, with certain duties and
> responsibilities.  While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to
the basic
> compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the
Wikimedia
> Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the
exceptional cases
> when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet minimum compliance
standards and
> their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a
risk to the
> Wikimedia movement.*
>
> *
>
> On September 9, 2016, Wikimedia Philippines was notified of their
> suspension as a Wikimedia affiliate due to long standing and
serious
> governance issues, as well as non-compliance with reporting
requirements
> which go as back as 2014, has been sent multiple warnings
regarding them,
> and on the date mentioned above,  was provided with an explicit
list of
> tasks and deadlines in order to return to compliance with their
chapter
> agreement. The chapter failed to complete these tasks by the
deadline of
> November 28, 2016, and was consequently notified that they
would no longer
> be recognized as a Wikimedia chapter after the termination of
their Chapter
> Agreement on March 1, 2017.  It is important to make clear that the
> Affiliations Committee will continue to support other organized
Wikimedia
> communities and their