Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Wikidata has its own problems in that regard that have triggered ongoing > discussions and concerns on the English Wikipedia.[1] Tensions between different communities with overlapping but non-identical objectives are unavoidable. Repository projects like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons provide huge payoff: they dramatically reduce duplication of effort, enable small language communities to benefit from the work done internationally, and can tackle a more expansive scope than the immediate needs of existing projects. A few examples include: - Wiki Loves Monuments, recognized as the world's largest photo competition - Partnerships with countless galleries, libraries, archives, and museums - Wikidata initiatives like mySociety's "Everypolitician" project or Gene Wiki This is not without its costs, however. Differing policies, levels of maturity, and social expectations will always fuel some level of conflict, and the repository approach creates huge usability challenges. The latter is also true for internal wiki features like templates, which shift information out of the article space, disempowering users who no longer understand how the whole is constructed from its parts. I would call these usability and "legibility" issues the single biggest challenge in the development of Wikidata, Structured Data for Commons, and other repository functionality. Much related work has already been done or is ticketed in Phabricator, such as the effective propagation of changes into watchlists, article histories, and notifications. Much more will need to follow. With regard to the issue of citations, it's worth noting that it's already possible to _conditionally_ load data from Wikidata, excluding information that is unsourced or only sourced circularly (i.e. to Wikipedia itself). [1] Template invocations can also override values provided by Wikidata, for example, if there is a source, but it is not considered reliable by the standards of a specific project. > If a digital voice assistant propagates a Wikimedia mistake without telling > users where it got its information from, then there is not even a feedback > form. Editability is of no help at all if people can't find the source. I'm in favor of always indicating at least provenance (something like "Here's a quote from Wikipedia:"), even for short excerpts, and I certainly think WMF and chapters can advocate for this practice. However, where short excerpts are concerned, it's not at all clear that there is a _legal_ issue here, and that full compliance with all requirements of the license is a reasonable "ask". Bing's search result page manages a decent compromise, I think: it shows excerpts from Wikipedia clearly labeled as such, and it links to the CC-BY-SA license if you expand the excerpt, e.g.: https://www.bing.com/search?q=france I know that over the years, many efforts have been undertaken to document best practices for re-use, ranging from local community-created pages to chapter guides and tools like the "Lizenzhinweisgenerator". I don't know what the best-available of these is nowadays, but if none exists, it might be a good idea to develop a new, comprehensive guide that takes into account voice applications, tabular data, and so on. Such a guide would ideally not just be written from a license compliance perspective, but also include recommendations, e.g., on how to best indicate provenance, distinguishing "here's what you must do" from "here's what we recommend". >> Wikidata will often provide a shallow first level of information about >> a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper information. The >> more structured the information, the easier it becomes to validate in >> an automatic fashion that, for example, the subset of country >> population time series data represented in Wikidata is an accurate >> representation of the source material. Even when a large source >> dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for low-latency visualization, say), >> you can hash it, digitally sign it, and restrict modifiability of >> copies. > Interesting, though I'm not aware of that being done at present. At present, Wikidata allows users to model constraints on internal data validity. These constraints are used for regularly generated database reports as well as on-demand lookup via https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ConstraintReport . This kicks in, for example, if you put in an insane number in a population field, or mark a country as female. There is a project underway to also validate against external sources; see: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions#Special_Page_Cross-Check_with_external_databases Wikidata still tends to deal with relatively small amounts of data; a highly annotated item like Germany (Q183), for example, comes in at under 1MB in uncompressed JSON form. Time series data like GDP is often included only for a single point in time, or for a subset of
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR
I worked in France some years ago, and I had the feeling that in my experience allegations of harassment were more common there than in other countries. At least in the tertiary sector. My idea is that instead of fixing the disfunctionalities of the working environment (which in France seemed to be above avarage compared to other countries) it is inevitable to add another one on the list. There is usually some professional boss at the end of the chain that cut them before it's too late. There was not even a point in blaming a specific person for something at a certain point (they always balmed someone, I ma just saying no point to me)... it all looked like a continuum of mismanaged issues where evrybody was victim and executioner at the same time. I believe that this is what happen in a system that shows a relatively scarcity of common sense, combined with an inability to admit there is an issue before it grows too much. It's like something involuting in its own parody, and sometimes it looks tragic and comic at the same time. Once I made fun with a André Malroux style of the death of the working ethics of the "Génération Mitterrand", but they so much did not like that. Of course I am aware that I am not the free spirit à la Sartre that knows how to to criticize the decadence of the French bourgeoise in the right way. Il Mercoledì 11 Ottobre 2017 23:51, John Erling Blad ha scritto: For the moment I have virtually zero trust in all involved, including the wmf board. Reorganize and regain trust! John Erling Blad On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Natacha Rault wrote: > Hi Maria, thank you. > > Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one > word of these allegations. > > My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I > think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed). > > Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - > causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to > be able to believe in this. > > Kind regards, > > Natacha / Nattes à chat > > > Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari a écrit : > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to > harassment > > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment > > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that > > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation > > Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We > > immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation > employed > > independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on > the > > information presented, the investigation found no support for the > > allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation > Board > > as well as the chair of Wikimédia France. > > > > The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation > if > > presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the > > allegations to be without merit. > > > > > > On behalf of the Board, > > > > > > María Sefidari > > > > El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" escribió: > > > > When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions > to > > them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly > > anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users > > are an invitation to fierce battles. > > > > Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role > > of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, > > unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the > > problems, and move on. > > > > No, I do not know any of the people involved. > > > > John Erling Blad > > /jeblad > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < > > mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice > >> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France. > >> > >> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now > complete > >> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and > >> frustration of these past few months. > >> > >> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had > more > >> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the > >> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I > > had > >> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie > Martin > >> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I > have > >> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values. > >> > >> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I > >> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR
For the moment I have virtually zero trust in all involved, including the wmf board. Reorganize and regain trust! John Erling Blad On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Natacha Rault wrote: > Hi Maria, thank you. > > Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one > word of these allegations. > > My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I > think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed). > > Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - > causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to > be able to believe in this. > > Kind regards, > > Natacha / Nattes à chat > > > Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari a écrit : > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to > harassment > > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment > > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that > > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation > > Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We > > immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation > employed > > independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on > the > > information presented, the investigation found no support for the > > allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation > Board > > as well as the chair of Wikimédia France. > > > > The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation > if > > presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the > > allegations to be without merit. > > > > > > On behalf of the Board, > > > > > > María Sefidari > > > > El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" escribió: > > > > When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions > to > > them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly > > anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users > > are an invitation to fierce battles. > > > > Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role > > of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, > > unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the > > problems, and move on. > > > > No, I do not know any of the people involved. > > > > John Erling Blad > > /jeblad > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < > > mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice > >> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France. > >> > >> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now > complete > >> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and > >> frustration of these past few months. > >> > >> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had > more > >> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the > >> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I > > had > >> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie > Martin > >> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I > have > >> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values. > >> > >> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I > >> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign > based > >> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all > >> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with > > them > >> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been > >> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly > > believed > >> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF > sites, > >> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, > >> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been > >> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist > rant > >> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a > >> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair > >> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to > >> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. > >> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early > in > >> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call > >> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware > of > >> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe > for > >> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is > >> pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to > >> intimidat
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR
Hi Maria, thank you. Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one word of these allegations. My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed). Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to be able to believe in this. Kind regards, Natacha / Nattes à chat > Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari a écrit : > > Dear all, > > > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation > Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We > immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed > independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the > information presented, the investigation found no support for the > allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board > as well as the chair of Wikimédia France. > > The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if > presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the > allegations to be without merit. > > > On behalf of the Board, > > > María Sefidari > > El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" escribió: > > When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to > them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly > anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users > are an invitation to fierce battles. > > Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role > of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, > unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the > problems, and move on. > > No, I do not know any of the people involved. > > John Erling Blad > /jeblad > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < > mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice >> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France. >> >> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete >> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and >> frustration of these past few months. >> >> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more >> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the >> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I > had >> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin >> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have >> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values. >> >> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I >> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based >> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all >> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with > them >> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been >> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly > believed >> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites, >> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, >> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been >> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant >> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a >> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair >> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to >> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. >> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in >> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call >> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of >> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for >> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is >> pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to >> intimidate chapter members and silence opposition. >> >> Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent >> members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case, >> right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for >> personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice >> system despite a so-called “rather con
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR
Dear all, We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board as well as the chair of Wikimédia France. The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit. On behalf of the Board, María Sefidari El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" escribió: When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles. Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on. No, I do not know any of the people involved. John Erling Blad /jeblad On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice > Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France. > > The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete > and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and > frustration of these past few months. > > I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more > time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the > French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I had > a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin > or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have > I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values. > > Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I > defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based > on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all > the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with them > closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been > manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly believed > everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites, > email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, > questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been > told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant > against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a > conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair > Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to > withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. > People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in > the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call > themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of > the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for > facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is > pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to > intimidate chapter members and silence opposition. > > Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent > members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case, > right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for > personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice > system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous > ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating > our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very > much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None > of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of > spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has > clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the > Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the > hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the > crisis. > > I am also extremely disappointed
