Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Anna Stillwell]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> >> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >
> >
> >We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
> Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
> cost,
> and from what source are the funds being drawn?
>
>
> >> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >> perspective.
> >>
>
> > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> > told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> > affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
> > We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
> a
> > lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> > say it.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> >
> > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> > the strategy process?
> >
>
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax.


WMF's standards are not lax. Far from it.


> This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Pine,
> >
> > Good evening. In line.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> > would
> > > like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >
> >
> > First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design.
> We
> > had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> > first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> learn
> > to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> >
> > We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
> > and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> > translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> seen
> > all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> > it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> >
> >
> > > * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> > > source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> > > decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> > > funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >
> >
> > We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> > of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >
> >
> > > * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> > > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > > perspective.
> > >
> >
> > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> > told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> > affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >
> > We agreed with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Pine W]

Hi Anna,

>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
>
>We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.

Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
cost,
and from what source are the funds being drawn?


>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>> perspective.
>>

> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
> say it.

OK, that makes sense.

>
> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
> the strategy process?
>

> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.

Pine


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello Pine,
>
> Good evening. In line.
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > conversation.
> >
> > If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> would
> > like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> >
>
> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
>
> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
>
>
> > * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> > source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
> > decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> > funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >
>
> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
>
> > * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > perspective.
> >
>
> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
> say it.
>
> >
> > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> > the strategy process?
> >
>
> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Pine W]

Thanks for the updates.

My perspective is that a functioning advisory board could be nice to have,
and I hope that its scope and methods of work could be articulated
somewhere such as in a charter. I think that such an arrangement would help
everyone to know their roles and have realistic expectations.

My impression is that the AB is a less time-sensitive concern than several
other issues that are on the Board's agenda, and I would suggest "not
stressing" about the AB, although one benefit to having a functional and
well-designed AB is that the AB might be able to help the Board a bit with
some of the other issues.

Pine


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Hello! Please find my answers inline.
>
> >> What is the status of the Avisory Board?
>
> There is no active Advisory Board at the moment, but the Board has approved
> inviting new members for the year. I have added a template to the page on
> Wikimedia Foundation site about it not being accurate at the moment. Thank
> you for noticing this.
>
> >> Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members?
>
> The Board has resolved to set up the Advisory Board during its meeting on
> June 16, 2017. The invitation letter will be sent tonight. As Dariusz
> mentioned already, the BGC discussion resulted in a proposal to the Board
> [2] to set up the Advisory Board on a lightweight structure (without budget
> and staff support at first), relying on the most active core of the former
> Advisory Board members, and a few individuals selected by the Board of
> Trustees based on the recommendation of the Governance Committee. So,
> basically it will consist of people mentioned here [3], but only those who
> took part in discussions about the AB role and strategy discussions and
> only after they accepted the invitation to join.
>
> >> If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's
> record?
>
> As far as I know, Florence has indeed worked with the former AB members as
> a group on their input to the Strategy process. Although the  Advisory
> Board has not been active for a few years, we are still very thankful for
> their perspective.
>
> >> If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the
> Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be
> gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will
> interact with  the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for
> that interaction.
>
> That’s for the AB to work on and come up with a suggestion to the
> BGC/Board. The first task of the AB will be working on internal
> coordination, other questions may follow.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Former_members
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the  Wikimedia Foundation, and was
> > required to be renewed annually.  No resolution was made to do so in
> 2015,
> > so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed.  This status is reflected at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding
> page
> > at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out
> of
> > date (it was written when the board was still in existence).  Just about
> a
> > year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to
> > revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for
> > April published a couple of days ago at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_
> > Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
> > show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the
> > subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board".  No Board
> > resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
> >
> > Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/
> > 2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board
> > recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current
> > movement strategy process.  So it would seem that within a fortnight of
> the
> > BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence
> > again.
> >
> > What is the status of the Avisory Board?  Has it been reconstiuted, and
> if
> > so, when, and who are its new members?  If it has not been reconstituted,
> > what is the status of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

Hello! Please find my answers inline.

>> What is the status of the Avisory Board?

There is no active Advisory Board at the moment, but the Board has approved
inviting new members for the year. I have added a template to the page on
Wikimedia Foundation site about it not being accurate at the moment. Thank
you for noticing this.

>> Has it been reconstiuted, and if so, when, and who are its new members?

The Board has resolved to set up the Advisory Board during its meeting on
June 16, 2017. The invitation letter will be sent tonight. As Dariusz
mentioned already, the BGC discussion resulted in a proposal to the Board
[2] to set up the Advisory Board on a lightweight structure (without budget
and staff support at first), relying on the most active core of the former
Advisory Board members, and a few individuals selected by the Board of
Trustees based on the recommendation of the Governance Committee. So,
basically it will consist of people mentioned here [3], but only those who
took part in discussions about the AB role and strategy discussions and
only after they accepted the invitation to join.

>> If it has not been reconstituted, what is the status of Florence's
record?

As far as I know, Florence has indeed worked with the former AB members as
a group on their input to the Strategy process. Although the  Advisory
Board has not been active for a few years, we are still very thankful for
their perspective.

>> If and when the Advisory Board is reconstituted, will input from the
Community for potential members be welcome, and if so how will it be
gathered? Once the Board is in operation again, is it expected that it will
interact with  the Community, and if so, what will the mechanism be for
that interaction.

That’s for the AB to work on and come up with a suggestion to the
BGC/Board. The first task of the AB will be working on internal
coordination, other questions may follow.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Former_members

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv

*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*


On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the  Wikimedia Foundation, and was
> required to be renewed annually.  No resolution was made to do so in 2015,
> so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed.  This status is reflected at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page
> at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out of
> date (it was written when the board was still in existence).  Just about a
> year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to
> revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for
> April published a couple of days ago at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_
> Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
> show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the
> subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board".  No Board
> resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
>
> Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/
> 2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board
> recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current
> movement strategy process.  So it would seem that within a fortnight of the
> BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence
> again.
>
> What is the status of the Avisory Board?  Has it been reconstiuted, and if
> so, when, and who are its new members?  If it has not been reconstituted,
> what is the status of Florence's record?  If and when the Advisory Board is
> reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be
> welcome, and if so how will it be gathered?  Once the Board is in operation
> again, is it expected that it will interact with  the Community, and if so,
> what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Ting Chen]

Hi,


the Advisory Board, as it was, and so far I can see, as it probably will 
be, does not have something like a structure or a channel. It is more 
like a bunch of individuals that mostly the board, and in some cases the 
WMF staff may (or mostly) may not approach on specific topics. The board 
and the staff don't need to follow the advises from these people and in 
most cases I don't see that the AB members organize or interact very 
much. For AB members that are very easy to access, like Florence, just 
to name an obvious example, you have multiple channels to ask them about 
their opinions. I see myself in this category too. Others may not want 
to be able contacted by everyone, and I see alot benefit to respect this 
and see only very small benefit to refuse them this.



So in my opinion the current model of the accessability of AB member is 
just fine.



Greetings

Ting


Am 27.06.2017 um 16:39 schrieb Rogol Domedonfors:

Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on
the 13th April, then?  Or are you ready to discuss them now?  Or will the
possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the
Advisory Board is reconstituted?

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:


I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.

Best

Dj

On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:


Dariusz

Thanks for that update.  You don't mention any channels for communication
between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor
opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting
names.  I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered
important here?

"Rogol"

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:


Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC
priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB
members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The
concept
they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how
the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work
on
this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without
staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used
as
a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees,
and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff
and
the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.

We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope
is
understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.

Dariusz & Nat

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017


On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:


Craig

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues

around

the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested

in.

Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board

has

been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the

Community,

and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new

members or

new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who

the new

Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory

Board is,

or whether and how to engage with those members.

Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for

engagement

between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish
appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your
fellow members to engage with the Community.

You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view is

that

the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider

Foundation on

the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the

other

has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is

one

tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <

craig.newm...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related

issues,

but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I

learn

them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding

reliable

sources.

Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative

centered

at

the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.

That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk

about

this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Do you want to get that featured on the WMF blog? Was: Re: The editing contest "Translating Ibero-America" is back! Come and join us :)

[Samir Elsharbaty]

That was meant to be sent to Anna offlist. Sorry for sending here. Please
ignore this message.

Samir Elsharbaty
Communications|Wikimedia Foundation


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Samir Elsharbaty  wrote:

> Hey Anna,
>
> I hope that everything is going well at your end.
>
> I think this contest is doing REALLY well and was wondering if you would
> like us to feature it on the Wikimedia blog. If you are interested, I can
> start drafting something after getting some information/quotes from you
> and/or other lead organizers/participants. Also, if you prefer to write, we
> will be happy to publish something written in your words.
>
> Please let me know if you have any thoughts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Samir Elsharbaty
> Communications|Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Anna Torres  wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On behalf of Iberocoop, we would like to invite you to participate to our
> > anual translating contest regarding the Ibero-American culture. The
> contest
> > aims to improve the presence of our culture far beyond our borders as a
> way
> > to improve the diverse and quality content in other Wikipedias.
> >
> > You can find the contest page here
> >  >.
> >
> > Please spread the word!
> >
> > We hope to seeing you participating :)
> >
> > Hugs!
> >
> > --
> > 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,
> 
___
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] Do you want to get that featured on the WMF blog? Was: Re: The editing contest "Translating Ibero-America" is back! Come and join us :)

[Samir Elsharbaty]

Hey Anna,

I hope that everything is going well at your end.

I think this contest is doing REALLY well and was wondering if you would
like us to feature it on the Wikimedia blog. If you are interested, I can
start drafting something after getting some information/quotes from you
and/or other lead organizers/participants. Also, if you prefer to write, we
will be happy to publish something written in your words.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts.

Cheers,

Samir Elsharbaty
Communications|Wikimedia Foundation


On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Anna Torres  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of Iberocoop, we would like to invite you to participate to our
> anual translating contest regarding the Ibero-American culture. The contest
> aims to improve the presence of our culture far beyond our borders as a way
> to improve the diverse and quality content in other Wikipedias.
>
> You can find the contest page here
> .
>
> Please spread the word!
>
> We hope to seeing you participating :)
>
> Hugs!
>
> --
> 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] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

I believe that the AB should have something to propose and say there, so
until it is I am not going to put any proposals forward in this respect.

Best

On Jun 27, 2017 4:39 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

> Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on
> the 13th April, then?  Or are you ready to discuss them now?  Or will the
> possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the
> Advisory Board is reconstituted?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Dj
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>>
>>> Dariusz
>>>
>>> Thanks for that update.  You don't mention any channels for
>>> communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large,
>>> nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting
>>> names.  I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered
>>> important here?
>>>
>>> "Rogol"
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC
 priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB
 members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The
 concept
 they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on
 how
 the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work
 on
 this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without
 staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used
 as
 a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees,
 and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff
 and
 the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.

 We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I
 ope is
 understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.

 Dariusz & Nat

 [1]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
 overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
 [2]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
 overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017


 On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
 domedonf...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

 > Craig
 >
 > Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues
 around
 > the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
 in.
 >
 > Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory
 Board has
 > been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
 Community,
 > and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
 > process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
 members or
 > new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who
 the new
 > Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
 Board is,
 > or whether and how to engage with those members.
 >
 > Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
 engagement
 > between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
 > Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to
 establish
 > appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and
 your
 > fellow members to engage with the Community.
 >
 > You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view
 is that
 > the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
 Foundation on
 > the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
 other
 > has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is
 one
 > tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
 >
 > "Rogol"
 >
 > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
 craig.newm...@gmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 > > Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
 > issues,
 > > but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
 > learn
 > > them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
 > reliable
 > > sources.
 > >
 > > Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
 centered
 > at
 > > the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
 > >
 > > That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
 about
 > > this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
 > >
 > > Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit
 journalism, per
 > > the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on
the 13th April, then?  Or are you ready to discuss them now?  Or will the
possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the
Advisory Board is reconstituted?

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
>
> Best
>
> Dj
>
> On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>
>> Dariusz
>>
>> Thanks for that update.  You don't mention any channels for communication
>> between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor
>> opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting
>> names.  I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered
>> important here?
>>
>> "Rogol"
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC
>>> priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB
>>> members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The
>>> concept
>>> they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how
>>> the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work
>>> on
>>> this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without
>>> staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used
>>> as
>>> a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees,
>>> and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff
>>> and
>>> the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
>>>
>>> We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope
>>> is
>>> understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
>>>
>>> Dariusz & Nat
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
>>> overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
>>> [2]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
>>> overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>>> domedonf...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Craig
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues
>>> around
>>> > the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
>>> in.
>>> >
>>> > Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
>>> has
>>> > been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
>>> Community,
>>> > and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
>>> > process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
>>> members or
>>> > new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who
>>> the new
>>> > Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
>>> Board is,
>>> > or whether and how to engage with those members.
>>> >
>>> > Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
>>> engagement
>>> > between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
>>> > Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish
>>> > appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your
>>> > fellow members to engage with the Community.
>>> >
>>> > You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view is
>>> that
>>> > the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
>>> Foundation on
>>> > the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
>>> other
>>> > has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is
>>> one
>>> > tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
>>> >
>>> > "Rogol"
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
>>> craig.newm...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
>>> > issues,
>>> > > but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
>>> > learn
>>> > > them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
>>> > reliable
>>> > > sources.
>>> > >
>>> > > Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
>>> centered
>>> > at
>>> > > the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
>>> > >
>>> > > That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
>>> about
>>> > > this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
>>> > >
>>> > > Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit
>>> journalism, per
>>> > > the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be
>>> > > transparent while also Doing No Harm.  (The latter is surprisingly
>>> > > difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
>>> significant
>>> > > funding to the NII as well as WMF.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
>>> > subject.
>>> > > Thanks!

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Fæ]

On 27 June 2017 at 04:33, Anna Stillwell  wrote:
...
>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
>> the strategy process?
>>
>
> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> Always good to hear from you,
> /a

Anna,

I'd love to examine the more detailed monthly or quarterly financial
reports that demonstrate your assurance, and can be both examined and
understood by volunteers like us. Could you provide a link to them
please? No doubt the WMF wrote transparency and accountability right
into the contracts, so that being transparent and accountable is not
considered a "waste of the strategy budget" but instead is an activity
absolutely critical to its success.

Thanks,
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] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.

Best

Dj

On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

> Dariusz
>
> Thanks for that update.  You don't mention any channels for communication
> between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor
> opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting
> names.  I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered
> important here?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC
>> priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB
>> members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The
>> concept
>> they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how
>> the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on
>> this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without
>> staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as
>> a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees,
>> and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and
>> the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
>>
>> We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope
>> is
>> understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
>>
>> Dariusz & Nat
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_
>> Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_
>> Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues around
>> > the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
>> >
>> > Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
>> has
>> > been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community,
>> > and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
>> > process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
>> members or
>> > new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who the
>> new
>> > Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board
>> is,
>> > or whether and how to engage with those members.
>> >
>> > Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
>> engagement
>> > between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
>> > Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish
>> > appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your
>> > fellow members to engage with the Community.
>> >
>> > You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view is
>> that
>> > the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation
>> on
>> > the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
>> other
>> > has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is one
>> > tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
>> >
>> > "Rogol"
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
>> > issues,
>> > > but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
>> > learn
>> > > them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
>> > reliable
>> > > sources.
>> > >
>> > > Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
>> centered
>> > at
>> > > the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
>> > >
>> > > That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
>> about
>> > > this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
>> > >
>> > > Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism,
>> per
>> > > the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be
>> > > transparent while also Doing No Harm.  (The latter is surprisingly
>> > > difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
>> significant
>> > > funding to the NII as well as WMF.
>> > >
>> > > I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
>> > subject.
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the  Wikimedia Foundation,
>> and
>> > was
>> > > > required to be renewed annually.  No resolution was made to do so in
>> > > 2015,
>> > > > so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed.  This status is
>> reflected at
>> > > > 

[Wikimedia-l] [x-post] [Reminder] WMF Language team office hour and online meeting on June 27, 2017 (Tuesday) at 1300 UTC

[Runa Bhattacharjee]

[x-posted announcement]

Hello,

This is a reminder that the Wikimedia Language team's office hour is
happening later today (details at the end).

Please note, our agenda has been updated and today we will have a guest
speaker from the Tamil Wikipedia - Ravishankar A
,
who will talk about a campaign

(page
written in Tamil) that is currently underway to create new articles of high
quality using Content Translation. The Tamil community also has a help page
and a video

(page
written in Tamil) to help new users learn the tool.

Do let me know if you would like to join in the discussion via our hangout.
You can also ask questions over IRC (check the details below) or over email.

Thanks
Runa

== Details ==

# Event: Wikimedia Language team's office hour session

# When: June 27, 2017 (Tuesday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20170627T1300)

# Where: IRC #wikimedia-office (Freenode) and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Euhu4Q7HF4

# Agenda:

   - Ravishankar A from Tamil Wikipedia talks about a state-wide
   translation campaign using Content Translation.
   - Updates from the Language team and Q & A.




-- Forwarded message --
From: Runa Bhattacharjee 
Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:58 PM
Subject: WMF Language team office hour and online meeting on June 27, 2017
(Tuesday) at 1300 UTC
To: MediaWiki internationalisation ,
Wikimedia Mailing List , Wikimedia
developers , "Wikimedia & GLAM
collaboration [Public]" 


[x-posted announcement]

Hello,

The next online office hour session of the Wikimedia Language team is
scheduled for Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 at 13:00 UTC. This will be an open
session to talk about Wikimedia Language projects.

This session is going to be an online discussion over Google
Hangouts/Youtube with a simultaneous IRC conversation. Due to the
limitation of Google Hangouts, only a limited number of participation slots
are available. Hence, do please let us know in advance if you would like to
join in the Hangout. The IRC channel will be open for interactions during
the session.

Our last online round-table session was held in March 2017. You can watch
the recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DWXTRl5ZEk

Please read below for the event details, including local time, youtube
session links and do let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you
Runa

== Details ==

# Event: Wikimedia Language team's office hour session

# When: June 27, 2017 (Tuesday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20170627T1300)

# Where: IRC #wikimedia-office (Freenode) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=8Euhu4Q7HF4

# Agenda:
Updates from the Language team and Q & A.

-- 
Language Engineering Manager
Wikimedia Foundation




-- 
Language Engineering Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the
challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue
of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its
attention goes?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stillwell  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> In line.
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> > that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> > serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
>
>
> Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
> explore the problem.
>
>
> > When you look at the
> > team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> > effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
> support
> > in standards.
> >
>
> I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
> that view.
>
>
> > The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a
> small
> > language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> > bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
>
>
> You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
> is what you’re saying, I agree.
>
>
> > When we do
> > not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do
> not
> > even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> > write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs
> as I
> > described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
> >
>
> Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
> languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
> more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
>
> But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
> saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
> the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
> whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
> best addressed by other movement players.
>
>
> > The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> > pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> > be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project
> in
> > its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> > requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> > interlinked content.
> >
>
> Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
> is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
> pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
> also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
> agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
> to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
> this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
>
> I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
> was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
> non-existent.
>
>
> >
> > We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> > Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> > number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> > This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> > of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
> >
>
> I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
> to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
> movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
> like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
> between that keeps me up at night.
>
> Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
> agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
> well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
> spoken language in the world [citation needed].
>
> >
> > We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> > This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I
> have
> > written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will
> make
> > search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between
> links
> > and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
> > articles on the same subject share similar links.
> >
> > Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given
> preferential
> > treatment and all the other projects have suffered