Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Asaf Bartov]

I agree with Strainu's comments above.

I described some issues with adopting policies and ill-fitting policies
under the Community Governance capacity page, in the Community Capacity
Development program:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development/Community_governance


A.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:09 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > ​
> > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
>
>
> ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look
> at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
> it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is
> dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source
> to intense UV light.
>
> There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
> complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
> multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
> bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect the
> sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the
> uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language)
> from which it originates
>
> > ​
>
>
> On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> wrote:
>
> > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> >
> > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> policies.
> > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
> view.
> > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> > rewrite
> > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> > culture
> > > is
> > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> > > >
> > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> > but
> > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
> are
> > > > highly
> > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> > global
> > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> > analysis
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > > words,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > > articles
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > > approaches
> > > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
> demonstrate
> > > that
> > > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> > globally
> > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > > determines
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
> local
> > > and
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > subjective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
> > pf
> > > > much
> > > > > > > importance
> > > > > > > Ziko
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
> 2017
> > um
> > > > > > 14:42:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
> gnanga...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The moment you have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

>
> ​
> Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources


​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source
to intense UV light.

There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
"Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language)
from which it originates

> ​


On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
wrote:

> Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
>
> JP
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
>
> > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
> > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> rewrite
> > world history to focus on their own local view.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> culture
> > is
> > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> > >
> > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> but
> > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> > > highly
> > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> global
> > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > >
> > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> analysis
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > words,
> > > > and
> > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > articles
> > > > on
> > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > approaches
> > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
> > that
> > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> globally
> > > > > shared
> > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > determines
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > encyclopedic
> > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > encyclopedic
> > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
> > and
> > > > very
> > > > > > subjective.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
> pf
> > > much
> > > > > > importance
> > > > > > Ziko
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
> um
> > > > > 14:42:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> > > community
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
> for
> > > > > banned
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
> > are
> > > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
> > the
> > > > best
> > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > to establishing themselves 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[James Heilman]

IMO we need to work on the issue of undisclosed paid editing from a number
of different sides:

1) We need to get the word out to the wider world that paying someone to
write your Wikipedia article is inappropriate. We also need to publicly
state which companies have been banned / blocked from editing Wikipedia for
breach of our policies. This will hopefully direct people away from these
companies if they search for a company to hire.

2) We need to improve detection. Part of this may include running more CUs
when concerns are present, AI to pick up the pattern of paid editing /
spamming, and creating a group of functionaries to address private details
pertaining to UPE. Improving CU tools would also be useful.

James

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Rogol,
>
> Here are a few thoughts:
>
> 1. I tend to think that WMF would need to worry about its legal protections
> if WMF provided grants for content work. I am wondering if there is a way
> to work around that difficulty by having a separate organization do the
> fundraising.
>
> 2. A separate organization that raises funds could not only address COIN
> but could provide financial support for other areas of community work that
> WMF won't fund, such as other kinds of administrative work, and potentially
> content development and translation.
>
> 3. However, I'm not sure that a new organization's funding and governance
> could be made solid, reliable, and trustworthy. That's a difficult design
> challenge.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts from Doc James and others about how to scale
> up English Wikipedia's capacity to address COI issues.
>
> A lot of problems would be solved if we could significantly increase our
> numbers of highly skilled, good-faith Wikimedians. I believe that WMF is
> starting to work on this problem again; I'd like to be optimistic but I
> think that we should also plan for the possibility that these efforts will
> be unsuccessful.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Pine
> >
> > If the objects of the affiliate are compatible with those of the
> > Foundation, then you could ask for a grant.  If they are not, why would
> the
> > Foundation even consider letting you raise funds on their sites.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if WMF would be willing to let a non-WMF affiliate put up
> > > fundraising (which I consider to be another form of advertising, and
> > > perhaps some survey respondents did too) banners to get funds for COIN
> > and
> > > related backlogs. Perhaps if the fundraising was done by a separate
> > > organization, then these efforts could be funded while minimizing the
> > risks
> > > to WMF's legal protections.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> > > > > And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> > > >
> > > > I would sure like to know this.
> > > >
> > > > I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
> > > > hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
> > > > without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
> > > > Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
> > > > funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
> > > > issue separately as in WikiEd?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > > > > I find the slide
> > > > >  > > > 2017_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting.pdf=22>
> > > > > about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising"
> > > interesting
> > > > > as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
> > > > >
> > > > > We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and
> > > > appears
> > > > > to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which
> are
> > > > > mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> > > > > involved with adding SEO links.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> > > > >  > > > interest/Noticeboard>,
> > > > > which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more
> than
> > a
> > > > > hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject
> > > Spam.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is,
> such
> > as
> > > > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what
> > percentage
> > > > of
> > > > > socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher <
> > kma...@wikimedia.org>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.

JP

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:

> Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
> Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite
> world history to focus on their own local view.
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture
> is
> > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> >
> > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
> > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> > highly
> > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > >
> > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
> > the
> > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> words,
> > > and
> > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > articles
> > > on
> > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > approaches
> > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
> that
> > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> > > > shared
> > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> determines
> > > > what
> > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> encyclopedic
> > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> encyclopedic
> > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
> and
> > > very
> > > > > subjective.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
> > much
> > > > > importance
> > > > > Ziko
> > > > >
> > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> > > > 14:42:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> > ability
> > > to
> > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> > community
> > > > that
> > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> > > > banned
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
> are
> > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
> the
> > > best
> > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
> > > ince a
> > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
> > projects,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
> > and
> > > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > not increase them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
> strain...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
> > > resolution,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
> little
> > > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff
> from
> > > > > en.wp.
> > > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia 2030: Sharing the draft strategic direction / (#24!)

[Pine W]

Hi Katherine,

Thanks for sharing the draft. It looks like there's an attempt to create a
grand vision in that document. I feel that the document should be
simplified and shortened.

I'm concerned about scope creep. It looks to me like the scope of the
vision is so sweeping that WMF is moving in the opposite direction of the
"Narrowing Focus" exercise that happened during Sue's tenure. Can you
elaborate on the thinking about the change of approach from "Narrowing
Focus" to broadening focus"?

Thanks,

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] Chief Product Officer search and job description

[Pine W]

One would certainly aspire to be on time and on budget, but the reality of
complex engineering projects is that surprises happen. Developing a new
product isn't like building products on an assembly line where time and
cost are relatively easy to predict.

I think that looking for managers who are generally on time and on budget
with their projects is a good thing, but I also think that we should have
realistic expectations.

Pine


On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Pine,
>
> If you allow yourself to think that on time and on budget are optional,
> then you will certainly not get them.  I would expect the WMF to aspire to
> deliver products that are fit for purpose, on time and on budget.  I would
> also expect the staff and, especially, management to be held accountable
> for the extent to which they achieve those goals.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Joady,
> >
> > Does the title "Chief Product Officer" mean that WMF intends to revert
> the
> > name of the Audiences department back to the Product department?
> >
> > "On time and budget" is a goal that can be very difficult to achieve with
> > complex engineering projects that often encounter surprises. WMF has
> > experience with this with VisualEditor. I suggest that it would be good
> to
> > set realistic expectations for candidates.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Joady Lohr  wrote:
> >
> > > We are please to announce the upcoming launch of the recruiting process
> > for
> > > the Chief Product Officer.
> > >
> > > As part of the process, we wanted to share the job description
> (below). A
> > > big thank you to the Audiences & Technology teams for their
> > collaboration,
> > > support and guidance in creating it.
> > >
> > > We also wanted to out put a call, if you have any nominations or
> > > recommendations, we'd love to hear from you. Just email me directly
> over
> > > the next few days.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Joady
> > >
> > >
> > > Job Title:
> > >
> > > Chief Product Officer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Summary
> > >
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for a creative, collaborative,
> > > forward-thinking Chief Product Officer to join our executive team.
> We’re
> > > looking for a leader who is driven by our mission, animated by results,
> > > informed by data, and passionate about superb user experiences. This
> may
> > be
> > > you, if you have have a truly global worldview, uncompromising
> commitment
> > > to our values, and embrace transparency in your work and
> communications.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As Chief Product Officer, you will lead a nearly hundred person
> > department
> > > that builds and supports products, features, and services used by more
> > than
> > > one billion users per month from every part of the globe. As a member
> of
> > > the Foundation’s executive team you will be a critical voice
> representing
> > > our contributors, readers, and new users. Our vision is for “every
> human
> > > being to share in the sum of human knowledge”, and our product
> experience
> > > is essential to that vision.
> > >
> > > As Chief Product Officer, we’d like you to do these things:
> > >
> > > Lead
> > >
> > >-
> > >
> > >Work with the Foundation’s executive team to think and act in
> service
> > of
> > >the future of the Wikimedia vision, projects, contributors, and
> > readers
> > >-
> > >
> > >Serve as a compelling advocate for the Wikimedia movement,
> Foundation,
> > >and values to users, contributors, donors, and partners
> > >-
> > >
> > >Develop and lead product strategy to support the Wikimedia projects,
> > >communities, and partners
> > >
> > >
> > > Produce
> > >
> > >-
> > >
> > >Deliver measurable user impact at global scale by working
> > >collaboratively and effectively across internal departments and
> > external
> > >partners
> > >-
> > >
> > >Develop, advance and deliver an effective product vision, including
> > >expanding product usership, contributor health and retention, brand
> > >awareness, and revenue growth
> > >-
> > >
> > >Build products to grow and sustain our content-building communities
> > >while acquiring, delighting, and engaging readers
> > >-
> > >
> > >Foster a well-defined theory of change with qualitative and
> > quantitative
> > >metrics to track and communicate impact
> > >
> > >
> > > Manage
> > >
> > >-
> > >
> > >Build a sustainable system and culture for team members’ continued
> > >professional growth and advancement
> > >-
> > >
> > >Manage, mentor, and recruit exceptional and diverse talent
> > >-
> > >
> > >Build strong and effective teams, developing departmental succession
> > >planning across a broad range of disciplines (e.g., product
> > management,
> > >design, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chief Product Officer search and job description

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

If you allow yourself to think that on time and on budget are optional,
then you will certainly not get them.  I would expect the WMF to aspire to
deliver products that are fit for purpose, on time and on budget.  I would
also expect the staff and, especially, management to be held accountable
for the extent to which they achieve those goals.

"Rogol"

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Joady,
>
> Does the title "Chief Product Officer" mean that WMF intends to revert the
> name of the Audiences department back to the Product department?
>
> "On time and budget" is a goal that can be very difficult to achieve with
> complex engineering projects that often encounter surprises. WMF has
> experience with this with VisualEditor. I suggest that it would be good to
> set realistic expectations for candidates.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Joady Lohr  wrote:
>
> > We are please to announce the upcoming launch of the recruiting process
> for
> > the Chief Product Officer.
> >
> > As part of the process, we wanted to share the job description (below). A
> > big thank you to the Audiences & Technology teams for their
> collaboration,
> > support and guidance in creating it.
> >
> > We also wanted to out put a call, if you have any nominations or
> > recommendations, we'd love to hear from you. Just email me directly over
> > the next few days.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Joady
> >
> >
> > Job Title:
> >
> > Chief Product Officer
> >
> >
> >
> > Summary
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for a creative, collaborative,
> > forward-thinking Chief Product Officer to join our executive team. We’re
> > looking for a leader who is driven by our mission, animated by results,
> > informed by data, and passionate about superb user experiences. This may
> be
> > you, if you have have a truly global worldview, uncompromising commitment
> > to our values, and embrace transparency in your work and communications.
> >
> >
> >
> > As Chief Product Officer, you will lead a nearly hundred person
> department
> > that builds and supports products, features, and services used by more
> than
> > one billion users per month from every part of the globe. As a member of
> > the Foundation’s executive team you will be a critical voice representing
> > our contributors, readers, and new users. Our vision is for “every human
> > being to share in the sum of human knowledge”, and our product experience
> > is essential to that vision.
> >
> > As Chief Product Officer, we’d like you to do these things:
> >
> > Lead
> >
> >-
> >
> >Work with the Foundation’s executive team to think and act in service
> of
> >the future of the Wikimedia vision, projects, contributors, and
> readers
> >-
> >
> >Serve as a compelling advocate for the Wikimedia movement, Foundation,
> >and values to users, contributors, donors, and partners
> >-
> >
> >Develop and lead product strategy to support the Wikimedia projects,
> >communities, and partners
> >
> >
> > Produce
> >
> >-
> >
> >Deliver measurable user impact at global scale by working
> >collaboratively and effectively across internal departments and
> external
> >partners
> >-
> >
> >Develop, advance and deliver an effective product vision, including
> >expanding product usership, contributor health and retention, brand
> >awareness, and revenue growth
> >-
> >
> >Build products to grow and sustain our content-building communities
> >while acquiring, delighting, and engaging readers
> >-
> >
> >Foster a well-defined theory of change with qualitative and
> quantitative
> >metrics to track and communicate impact
> >
> >
> > Manage
> >
> >-
> >
> >Build a sustainable system and culture for team members’ continued
> >professional growth and advancement
> >-
> >
> >Manage, mentor, and recruit exceptional and diverse talent
> >-
> >
> >Build strong and effective teams, developing departmental succession
> >planning across a broad range of disciplines (e.g., product
> management,
> >design, engineering, data analysis)
> >-
> >
> >Manage competing priorities, complex stakeholder relationships, and
> >finite resources in order to deliver measurable user impact at scale
> >
> >
> > Collaborate
> >
> >-
> >
> >Build and strengthen relationships with the Wikimedia community to
> >advance the mission of the Foundation
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Identify and grow product partnerships that support our movement’s
> >aspirations
> >-
> >
> >Work with our communities to understand their needs and motivations
> >
> > We’d like you to have this experience and these skills:
> >
> >-
> >
> >10+ years in strategic-level product development roles
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Proven record of leading high-impact global software product
> initiatives
> >for millions 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chief Product Officer search and job description

[Pine W]

Hi Joady,

Does the title "Chief Product Officer" mean that WMF intends to revert the
name of the Audiences department back to the Product department?

"On time and budget" is a goal that can be very difficult to achieve with
complex engineering projects that often encounter surprises. WMF has
experience with this with VisualEditor. I suggest that it would be good to
set realistic expectations for candidates.

Thanks,

Pine


On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Joady Lohr  wrote:

> We are please to announce the upcoming launch of the recruiting process for
> the Chief Product Officer.
>
> As part of the process, we wanted to share the job description (below). A
> big thank you to the Audiences & Technology teams for their collaboration,
> support and guidance in creating it.
>
> We also wanted to out put a call, if you have any nominations or
> recommendations, we'd love to hear from you. Just email me directly over
> the next few days.
>
> Thanks!
> Joady
>
>
> Job Title:
>
> Chief Product Officer
>
>
>
> Summary
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for a creative, collaborative,
> forward-thinking Chief Product Officer to join our executive team. We’re
> looking for a leader who is driven by our mission, animated by results,
> informed by data, and passionate about superb user experiences. This may be
> you, if you have have a truly global worldview, uncompromising commitment
> to our values, and embrace transparency in your work and communications.
>
>
>
> As Chief Product Officer, you will lead a nearly hundred person department
> that builds and supports products, features, and services used by more than
> one billion users per month from every part of the globe. As a member of
> the Foundation’s executive team you will be a critical voice representing
> our contributors, readers, and new users. Our vision is for “every human
> being to share in the sum of human knowledge”, and our product experience
> is essential to that vision.
>
> As Chief Product Officer, we’d like you to do these things:
>
> Lead
>
>-
>
>Work with the Foundation’s executive team to think and act in service of
>the future of the Wikimedia vision, projects, contributors, and readers
>-
>
>Serve as a compelling advocate for the Wikimedia movement, Foundation,
>and values to users, contributors, donors, and partners
>-
>
>Develop and lead product strategy to support the Wikimedia projects,
>communities, and partners
>
>
> Produce
>
>-
>
>Deliver measurable user impact at global scale by working
>collaboratively and effectively across internal departments and external
>partners
>-
>
>Develop, advance and deliver an effective product vision, including
>expanding product usership, contributor health and retention, brand
>awareness, and revenue growth
>-
>
>Build products to grow and sustain our content-building communities
>while acquiring, delighting, and engaging readers
>-
>
>Foster a well-defined theory of change with qualitative and quantitative
>metrics to track and communicate impact
>
>
> Manage
>
>-
>
>Build a sustainable system and culture for team members’ continued
>professional growth and advancement
>-
>
>Manage, mentor, and recruit exceptional and diverse talent
>-
>
>Build strong and effective teams, developing departmental succession
>planning across a broad range of disciplines (e.g., product management,
>design, engineering, data analysis)
>-
>
>Manage competing priorities, complex stakeholder relationships, and
>finite resources in order to deliver measurable user impact at scale
>
>
> Collaborate
>
>-
>
>Build and strengthen relationships with the Wikimedia community to
>advance the mission of the Foundation
>
>
>-
>
>Identify and grow product partnerships that support our movement’s
>aspirations
>-
>
>Work with our communities to understand their needs and motivations
>
> We’d like you to have this experience and these skills:
>
>-
>
>10+ years in strategic-level product development roles
>
>
>-
>
>Proven record of leading high-impact global software product initiatives
>for millions of users with measurable success, across multilingual
>audiences, on time and budget
>-
>
>Experience leading multidisciplinary product development teams,
>developing diverse talent pipelines, and creating systems for creative
> and
>sustainable internal workflows
>-
>
>Proven skills with modern forms of adaptive product planning, customer
>discovery, product discovery, and product development processes to
> deliver
>software features that meet users’ needs
>-
>
>Experience collaborating on the development of product roadmaps which
>feed into company strategy, including detailed technological
> implementations
>-
>
>Significant experience navigating complex 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to watch and follow Wikimania 2017 remotely

[Denise Jansen]

Great, thanks for the info!


Denise Jansen
Projectleider
Wikimedia Nederland

tel. 06  2952 0069
(ma, di, do)

*Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD  Utrecht Utrecht

*Wikimedia Nederland organiseert regelmatig bijeenkomsten, u bent daarbij
van harte welkom. Kijk voor meer informatie in onze agenda
.*

2017-08-08 17:27 GMT+02:00 Melody Kramer :

> Hello!
>
> As many of you know, Wikimania 2017 will take place in Montréal, Canada
> from 9–13 August.
>
> If you cannot attend this year, there are still opportunities to follow
> along remotely. Keynote sessions will be livestreamed [1] and recorded
> throughout the conference on YouTube [2] and Facebook Live [3]. Additional
> recorded sessions will be posted on the conference notes page [6] when they
> become available. We are asking all speakers to designate a notetaker for
> their session, and to copy the template [8] for use in their session.
>
> You can also follow @Wikimania [4] and the hashtag #wikimania [5] on
> Twitter. We will round up presentations and highlights for both Meta and
> our blog after the conference ends. [6] You can also search the full
> programme schedule. [7]
>
> Please respond here or contact me directly with any questions or ideas to
> make this experience better for remote participants.
>
> - Mel
>
>
> [1] The Livestream schedule is here:
> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Livestreamed_keynotes
>
> [2] YouTube livestream links:
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK_cUZLMpibyRiIdp0uF-lQ
>
> [3] Facebook links will be posted on the livestream schedule when
> available. The keynote talks will be livestreamed on the Wikipedia Facebook
> page: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/
>
> [4] https://twitter.com/Wikimania
>
> [5] https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wikimania=tyah
>
> [6] A full list of conference sessions is here:
> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/All_Session_Notes Notes and
> presentations will be posted as they become available.
>
> [7] Complete program schedule
> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
>
> [8] Notetaking template:
> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania2017-template
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Melody Kramer 
> Senior Audience Development Manager
> Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!
> 
>
> mkra...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] How to watch and follow Wikimania 2017 remotely

[Melody Kramer]

Hello!

As many of you know, Wikimania 2017 will take place in Montréal, Canada
from 9–13 August.

If you cannot attend this year, there are still opportunities to follow
along remotely. Keynote sessions will be livestreamed [1] and recorded
throughout the conference on YouTube [2] and Facebook Live [3]. Additional
recorded sessions will be posted on the conference notes page [6] when they
become available. We are asking all speakers to designate a notetaker for
their session, and to copy the template [8] for use in their session.

You can also follow @Wikimania [4] and the hashtag #wikimania [5] on
Twitter. We will round up presentations and highlights for both Meta and
our blog after the conference ends. [6] You can also search the full
programme schedule. [7]

Please respond here or contact me directly with any questions or ideas to
make this experience better for remote participants.

- Mel


[1] The Livestream schedule is here:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Livestreamed_keynotes

[2] YouTube livestream links:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK_cUZLMpibyRiIdp0uF-lQ

[3] Facebook links will be posted on the livestream schedule when
available. The keynote talks will be livestreamed on the Wikipedia Facebook
page: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/

[4] https://twitter.com/Wikimania

[5] https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wikimania=tyah

[6] A full list of conference sessions is here:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/All_Session_Notes Notes and
presentations will be posted as they become available.

[7] Complete program schedule
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme

[8] Notetaking template:
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania2017-template





-- 
Melody Kramer 
Senior Audience Development Manager
Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!


mkra...@wikimedia.org
___
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] Core content policy

[Strainu]

2017-08-08 12:20 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> something different from Wikipedia.

Each version of Wikipedia is a different encyclopedia. There are
vastly different inclusion policies and general policies between
the different encyclopedias out there, what links them is that they
provide information from all areas of knowledge.

> This is about core content policies.
> Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite
> world history to focus on their own local view.

Having a policy about it does not solve the issue. Having a policy one
can't really change will make it even worse.{{citation needed}} :)

>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is
>> more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
>>
>> On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>>
>> > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
>> > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
>> > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
>> highly
>> > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
>> > Armenian genocide for example.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> >
>> > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
>> > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
>> > >
>> > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
>> the
>> > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
>> > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
>> > and
>> > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
>> articles
>> > on
>> > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
>> > approaches
>> > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
>> > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
>> > > shared
>> > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
>> > > what
>> > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
>> > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
>> > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
>> > very
>> > > > subjective.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
>> > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
>> much
>> > > > importance
>> > > > Ziko
>> > > >
>> > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
>> > > 14:42:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Five pillars are moot.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
>> ability
>> > to
>> > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
>> community
>> > > that
>> > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
>> > > banned
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
>> > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
>> > best
>> > > > > guide
>> > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
>> > ince a
>> > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
>> projects,
>> > > but
>> > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
>> > lot
>> > > of
>> > > > > > time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
>> and
>> > > > > > process,
>> > > > > > > not increase them.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
>> > resolution,
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
>> > > projects
>> > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
>> > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
>> > > > en.wp.
>> > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is
> more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
>
> On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
> > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> highly
> > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > Armenian genocide for example.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > >
> > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
> the
> > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
> of
> > > the
> > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
> > and
> > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> articles
> > on
> > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > approaches
> > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
> > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> > > shared
> > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
> > > what
> > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
> > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
> > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
> > very
> > > > subjective.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
> much
> > > > importance
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> > > 14:42:
> > > >
> > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> ability
> > to
> > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> community
> > > that
> > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> > > banned
> > > > > and
> > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
> > best
> > > > > guide
> > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
> > ince a
> > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
> projects,
> > > but
> > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
> and
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > not increase them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
> > resolution,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> > > projects
> > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
> > > > en.wp.
> > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
> > with
> > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement,
> let
> > > > alone
> > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
> pushing
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > local context.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just
> as
> > > > long
> > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about
> > it.
> > > > > Even
> > > > > > > > if 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gabriel Thullen]

Thank you Natacha for the update on the French situation.
What would really make me happy this week would be to witness a goodwill or
wikilove gesture by the French board: let the members who were recently
expelled join up again so that we can hold some meaningful discussions.
Gabe

Le 8 août 2017 2:56 AM, "Natacha Rault"  a écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that
> several topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be
> held in september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.
>
> The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do
> this has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/
> Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%
> C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l%27ordre_du_jour  wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%
> A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l'ordre_du_jour>
>
> We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and
> start working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I
> am personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have
> expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> #whatmakesmehappythisweek
>
> > Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> >
> > Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
> >> What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the
> chapter
> >> members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
> >> The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
> >> vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was
> fired
> >> for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had
> their
> >> membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
> >> the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
> >> may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it
> up.
> >
> > It far from sum-it-up.
> >
> > There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management,
> including
> > * non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very
> involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt
> and you need to grow up to become an adult"
> > * paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not
> understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to
> you *again* so that you *really* get it"
> > * legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
> > * referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or
> "pigiste"
> > * refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as
> "no author name in wiki newsletter")
> > * emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately
> forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and
> confidentially discuss issues
> > * there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private
> data
> > * set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by
> staff in spite of being members.
> >
> > There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment
> publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members
> joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
> >
> > There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous"
> expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
> >
> > There are questions related to management using the resources and image
> of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a
> mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
> >
> > There are questions related to using resources of the association to
> gain a elected position.
> >
> > And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor
> details".
> >
> >
> >> The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they
> are
> >> related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
> >> fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us
> find
> >> an issue to this crisis. (
> >> http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
> >
> > Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of
> our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is
> a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is
> certification.
> >
> > What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the
> members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting
> COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
> >
> > It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

Dear All, 

More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that several 
topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be held in 
september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.

The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do this 
has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l%27ordre_du_jour
 


We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and start 
working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I am 
personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have 
expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.  

Kind regards, 

Nattes à chat 

#whatmakesmehappythisweek

> Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> 
> Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
>> What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter
>> members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
>> The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
>> vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired
>> for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
>> membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
>> the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
>> may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
> 
> It far from sum-it-up.
> 
> There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management, 
> including
> * non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very 
> involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt and 
> you need to grow up to become an adult"
> * paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not 
> understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to 
> you *again* so that you *really* get it"
> * legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
> * referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste"
> * refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as "no 
> author name in wiki newsletter")
> * emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately 
> forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and 
> confidentially discuss issues
> * there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private data
> * set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by staff 
> in spite of being members.
> 
> There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment publicly, but 
> is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members joined and created a 
> trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
> 
> There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous" expenses 
> reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
> 
> There are questions related to management using the resources and image of 
> the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a mysterious 
> entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
> 
> There are questions related to using resources of the association to gain a 
> elected position.
> 
> And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor details".
> 
> 
>> The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
>> related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
>> fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
>> an issue to this crisis. (
>> http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
> 
> Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of our 
> current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is a 
> Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is 
> certification.
> 
> What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the members 
> of the committee do not have independance from those reporting COI... that is 
> another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
> 
> It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the 
> outcome.
> 
> Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT to 
> vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.
> 
> But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers is 
> frankly just wrong.
> 
> Florence
> 
> 
>> I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
>> results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
>> Something