Re: [Wikimedia-l] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Asaf Bartov]

That tool was Limesurvey.

   A.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, 08:59 Philippe Beaudette  wrote:

> I would also like to add a bit of historical context.  Many years ago,
> when I worked at the WMF, we were using a FLOSS survey tool (I don't recall
> which).  We were fairly dependent on it, when one day someone discovered
> that it was vulnerable to sql injection attacks and Tim Starling (I
> believe) rightly killed it on our servers. Shortly after that, we moved
> toward using a non-free tool that was safer and more robust.  I dont recall
> that the two events were connected, but I would be surprised if they
> weren't.
>
> Tim did the right thing then, even though it meant that we were moved off
> a FLOSS solution.  Sometimes "Free" just isn't equal, or better.  Sometimes
> it's an actual honest-to-god security risk and there are reasons why
> WMF's staff aren't using a free alternative to a proprietary tool.  Did
> anyone ask?
>
> Philippe
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:13 AM Risker  wrote:
>
>> To clarify to anyone who doesn't want to read the actual proposal, which
>> Fae did not repeat here:
>>
>> *Proposal*
>>
>> It is proposed that on Wikimedia Commons that there must be no promotion
>> of surveys or questionnaires which rely on third party sites and closed
>> source tools, such as Google Forms. This should be interpreted as a ban
>> against engaging volunteers by mass messaging, use of banners or posts on
>> noticeboards.
>> *Recommended consequential action*
>>
>> Banners and posts which go against this proposal may be removed by
>> anyone.
>>
>> Posting account(s) may be blocked or have group rights removed at the
>> discretion of administrators, such as all rights that enable mass
>> messaging. In a persistent case, blocks and rights removal may apply to all
>> accounts of the person responsible. A rationale of doing their job as
>> part of being a WMF employee is not considered an exemption.
>>
>>
>> Nowthis applies to everyone who posts about a survey at Wikimedia
>> Commons, as this proposal is strictly related to Commons. It is not a
>> global proposal.  However, it would apply to researchers, to WMF staff, to
>> anyone who uses closed-sourced tools.  There is no suggestion at all about
>> suitable alternative tools.  In fact, there is a severe dearth of quality
>> open source tools.  Researchers may be bound by their facilities to use
>> certain types of tools.
>>
>> Surveys and questionnaires are always voluntary. There's some
>> responsibility on the part of the user to read the privacy statements and
>> use of information statements that are normally mandatory for any
>> legitimate surveys.  More than once I've started to participate in a survey
>> and decided it was asking questions I didn't want to answer, and just never
>> saved them.
>>
>>
>> I think it would also be helpful if someone from WMF Technical could take
>> the time to discuss with the broader community what arrangements have been
>> made in their contract with Google to ensure that the information on those
>> documents (of whatever nature) are not in fact accessible to Google for
>> their data gathering or any other purposes.  There is, of course, a certain
>> irony that three of the four people who have commented on this thread so
>> far all have Gmail email addresses.
>>
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 00:24, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Fae's proposal if we are using tools that exclude community
>>> members out of safety and privacy concerns then we arent fulfilling the
>>> equity goals. I also recognise that alternatives need to be available but
>>> with no incentive for them to be used then there is no development of such
>>> tools, or improvements to their functionality. Faes proposal is putting the
>>> WMF on notice that there are steps we need to take to ensure equity,
>>> safety, and privacy in participation.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 09:08, Łukasz Garczewski <
>>> lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl> wrote:
>>>
 With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing
 solution, it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a
 process to find it before the ban takes effect.

 I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public
 Money? Public Code open letter . I
 am wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software.

 At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool
 for the job.

 Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due
 to a noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for
 everything we do.

 Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions,
 WMPL wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not
 insignificant amount of members' time because:

- Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is
impossible to 

[Wikimedia-l] Project Grants Open Call February 15 - March 16, 2021

[Rupika Sharma]

Hello everyone,


This is a reminder for the next open call for the Project Grants
focused on research
and software proposals started today i.e. February 15 with a submission
deadline of March 16, 2021.  .


For this round, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under
research and software categories. We offer the following resources to help
you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

*Weekly proposals clinics via Hangouts during the Open Call. Join us for
real-time discussions with Program Officers and select thematic experts and
get live feedback about your Project Grants proposal. We’ll answer
questions and help you make your proposal better.<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project#Upcoming_events>

*Video tutorials for writing a strong application:<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Tutorial>

*General planning page for Project Grants:<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Plan>

*Program guidelines and criteria:<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Learn>

*Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal
support upon request.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and
make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into
motion, and submit your proposal by March 16, 2021! <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Apply>

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with
your grant application. We have an open call ongoing for Project Grants
Committee - if you are interested in serving on the Committee, please apply
through this link<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Committee/Candidates>. We
are in particular need of software experts; research experts also are
welcome to apply for the role in the committee. Contact us at
projectgra...@wikimedia.org if you would like feedback or more information.


Best regards,
Rupika

*Rupika Sharma*
Junior Program Officer

Wikimedia Foundation Grants
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] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Gnangarra]

I don't live in a country where I need to be worried about the
anonymity and privacy, but that doesn't prevent me from  appreciating that
there are people in countries like Myanmar, Iran, Syria, and many others
who need the assurity of privacy to contribute to the movement.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 14:12, Risker  wrote:

> To clarify to anyone who doesn't want to read the actual proposal, which
> Fae did not repeat here:
>
> *Proposal*
>
> It is proposed that on Wikimedia Commons that there must be no promotion
> of surveys or questionnaires which rely on third party sites and closed
> source tools, such as Google Forms. This should be interpreted as a ban
> against engaging volunteers by mass messaging, use of banners or posts on
> noticeboards.
> *Recommended consequential action*
>
> Banners and posts which go against this proposal may be removed by anyone.
>
> Posting account(s) may be blocked or have group rights removed at the
> discretion of administrators, such as all rights that enable mass
> messaging. In a persistent case, blocks and rights removal may apply to all
> accounts of the person responsible. A rationale of doing their job as
> part of being a WMF employee is not considered an exemption.
>
>
> Nowthis applies to everyone who posts about a survey at Wikimedia
> Commons, as this proposal is strictly related to Commons. It is not a
> global proposal.  However, it would apply to researchers, to WMF staff, to
> anyone who uses closed-sourced tools.  There is no suggestion at all about
> suitable alternative tools.  In fact, there is a severe dearth of quality
> open source tools.  Researchers may be bound by their facilities to use
> certain types of tools.
>
> Surveys and questionnaires are always voluntary. There's some
> responsibility on the part of the user to read the privacy statements and
> use of information statements that are normally mandatory for any
> legitimate surveys.  More than once I've started to participate in a survey
> and decided it was asking questions I didn't want to answer, and just never
> saved them.
>
>
> I think it would also be helpful if someone from WMF Technical could take
> the time to discuss with the broader community what arrangements have been
> made in their contract with Google to ensure that the information on those
> documents (of whatever nature) are not in fact accessible to Google for
> their data gathering or any other purposes.  There is, of course, a certain
> irony that three of the four people who have commented on this thread so
> far all have Gmail email addresses.
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 00:24, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> I agree with Fae's proposal if we are using tools that exclude community
>> members out of safety and privacy concerns then we arent fulfilling the
>> equity goals. I also recognise that alternatives need to be available but
>> with no incentive for them to be used then there is no development of such
>> tools, or improvements to their functionality. Faes proposal is putting the
>> WMF on notice that there are steps we need to take to ensure equity,
>> safety, and privacy in participation.
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 09:08, Łukasz Garczewski <
>> lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing
>>> solution, it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a
>>> process to find it before the ban takes effect.
>>>
>>> I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public
>>> Money? Public Code open letter . I
>>> am wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software.
>>>
>>> At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool
>>> for the job.
>>>
>>> Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due to
>>> a noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for
>>> everything we do.
>>>
>>> Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions, WMPL
>>> wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not insignificant
>>> amount of members' time because:
>>>
>>>- Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is
>>>impossible to setup and maintain and has very sparse documentation,
>>>- CiviCRM, the premier open source CRM solution for NGOs, refuses to
>>>work correctly after the Wordpress installation is moved to a new URL, 
>>> and
>>>documentation isn't helpful.
>>>
>>> To my knowledge there are no suitable open source options that would be
>>> easy-to-use and robust enough to support our needs in both cases and be
>>> comparable to commercial counterparts.
>>>
>>> I have wasted a ton of time (and therefore WMPL money), before I decided
>>> to use state-of-the-art commercial solutions for the needs described above.
>>> Don't be like me. Don't make other people think & act like I did. Be
>>> smarter.
>>>
>>> Should we use an *equivalent* open source solution when one 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Philippe Beaudette]

I would also like to add a bit of historical context.  Many years ago, when
I worked at the WMF, we were using a FLOSS survey tool (I don't recall
which).  We were fairly dependent on it, when one day someone discovered
that it was vulnerable to sql injection attacks and Tim Starling (I
believe) rightly killed it on our servers. Shortly after that, we moved
toward using a non-free tool that was safer and more robust.  I dont recall
that the two events were connected, but I would be surprised if they
weren't.

Tim did the right thing then, even though it meant that we were moved off a
FLOSS solution.  Sometimes "Free" just isn't equal, or better.  Sometimes
it's an actual honest-to-god security risk and there are reasons why
WMF's staff aren't using a free alternative to a proprietary tool.  Did
anyone ask?

Philippe

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:13 AM Risker  wrote:

> To clarify to anyone who doesn't want to read the actual proposal, which
> Fae did not repeat here:
>
> *Proposal*
>
> It is proposed that on Wikimedia Commons that there must be no promotion
> of surveys or questionnaires which rely on third party sites and closed
> source tools, such as Google Forms. This should be interpreted as a ban
> against engaging volunteers by mass messaging, use of banners or posts on
> noticeboards.
> *Recommended consequential action*
>
> Banners and posts which go against this proposal may be removed by anyone.
>
> Posting account(s) may be blocked or have group rights removed at the
> discretion of administrators, such as all rights that enable mass
> messaging. In a persistent case, blocks and rights removal may apply to all
> accounts of the person responsible. A rationale of doing their job as
> part of being a WMF employee is not considered an exemption.
>
>
> Nowthis applies to everyone who posts about a survey at Wikimedia
> Commons, as this proposal is strictly related to Commons. It is not a
> global proposal.  However, it would apply to researchers, to WMF staff, to
> anyone who uses closed-sourced tools.  There is no suggestion at all about
> suitable alternative tools.  In fact, there is a severe dearth of quality
> open source tools.  Researchers may be bound by their facilities to use
> certain types of tools.
>
> Surveys and questionnaires are always voluntary. There's some
> responsibility on the part of the user to read the privacy statements and
> use of information statements that are normally mandatory for any
> legitimate surveys.  More than once I've started to participate in a survey
> and decided it was asking questions I didn't want to answer, and just never
> saved them.
>
>
> I think it would also be helpful if someone from WMF Technical could take
> the time to discuss with the broader community what arrangements have been
> made in their contract with Google to ensure that the information on those
> documents (of whatever nature) are not in fact accessible to Google for
> their data gathering or any other purposes.  There is, of course, a certain
> irony that three of the four people who have commented on this thread so
> far all have Gmail email addresses.
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 00:24, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> I agree with Fae's proposal if we are using tools that exclude community
>> members out of safety and privacy concerns then we arent fulfilling the
>> equity goals. I also recognise that alternatives need to be available but
>> with no incentive for them to be used then there is no development of such
>> tools, or improvements to their functionality. Faes proposal is putting the
>> WMF on notice that there are steps we need to take to ensure equity,
>> safety, and privacy in participation.
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 09:08, Łukasz Garczewski <
>> lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing
>>> solution, it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a
>>> process to find it before the ban takes effect.
>>>
>>> I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public
>>> Money? Public Code open letter . I
>>> am wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software.
>>>
>>> At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool
>>> for the job.
>>>
>>> Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due to
>>> a noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for
>>> everything we do.
>>>
>>> Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions, WMPL
>>> wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not insignificant
>>> amount of members' time because:
>>>
>>>- Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is
>>>impossible to setup and maintain and has very sparse documentation,
>>>- CiviCRM, the premier open source CRM solution for NGOs, refuses to
>>>work correctly after the Wordpress installation is moved to a new URL, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia WIkimeet India 2021 - Registration closes in 36 hours

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hello all,

The participant registration for Wikimedia WIkimeet India 2021 event will
close in 36 hours from now.

If you have not registered yet, please do it from this Google form link. --
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSejt2TdhMUEg34FUTpj6HnUe9d0Iv_1ncgOCkjvrsaHs6vP3g/viewform

You can also check our tentative schedule here -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Wikimeet_India_2021/Program

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
On behalf of WMWM India 2021


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
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] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Risker]

To clarify to anyone who doesn't want to read the actual proposal, which
Fae did not repeat here:

*Proposal*

It is proposed that on Wikimedia Commons that there must be no promotion of
surveys or questionnaires which rely on third party sites and closed source
tools, such as Google Forms. This should be interpreted as a ban against
engaging volunteers by mass messaging, use of banners or posts on
noticeboards.
*Recommended consequential action*

Banners and posts which go against this proposal may be removed by anyone.

Posting account(s) may be blocked or have group rights removed at the
discretion of administrators, such as all rights that enable mass
messaging. In a persistent case, blocks and rights removal may apply to all
accounts of the person responsible. A rationale of doing their job as part
of being a WMF employee is not considered an exemption.


Nowthis applies to everyone who posts about a survey at Wikimedia
Commons, as this proposal is strictly related to Commons. It is not a
global proposal.  However, it would apply to researchers, to WMF staff, to
anyone who uses closed-sourced tools.  There is no suggestion at all about
suitable alternative tools.  In fact, there is a severe dearth of quality
open source tools.  Researchers may be bound by their facilities to use
certain types of tools.

Surveys and questionnaires are always voluntary. There's some
responsibility on the part of the user to read the privacy statements and
use of information statements that are normally mandatory for any
legitimate surveys.  More than once I've started to participate in a survey
and decided it was asking questions I didn't want to answer, and just never
saved them.


I think it would also be helpful if someone from WMF Technical could take
the time to discuss with the broader community what arrangements have been
made in their contract with Google to ensure that the information on those
documents (of whatever nature) are not in fact accessible to Google for
their data gathering or any other purposes.  There is, of course, a certain
irony that three of the four people who have commented on this thread so
far all have Gmail email addresses.


Risker/Anne

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 00:24, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I agree with Fae's proposal if we are using tools that exclude community
> members out of safety and privacy concerns then we arent fulfilling the
> equity goals. I also recognise that alternatives need to be available but
> with no incentive for them to be used then there is no development of such
> tools, or improvements to their functionality. Faes proposal is putting the
> WMF on notice that there are steps we need to take to ensure equity,
> safety, and privacy in participation.
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 09:08, Łukasz Garczewski <
> lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl> wrote:
>
>> With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing
>> solution, it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a
>> process to find it before the ban takes effect.
>>
>> I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public
>> Money? Public Code open letter . I am
>> wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software.
>>
>> At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool
>> for the job.
>>
>> Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due to
>> a noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for
>> everything we do.
>>
>> Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions, WMPL
>> wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not insignificant
>> amount of members' time because:
>>
>>- Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is
>>impossible to setup and maintain and has very sparse documentation,
>>- CiviCRM, the premier open source CRM solution for NGOs, refuses to
>>work correctly after the Wordpress installation is moved to a new URL, and
>>documentation isn't helpful.
>>
>> To my knowledge there are no suitable open source options that would be
>> easy-to-use and robust enough to support our needs in both cases and be
>> comparable to commercial counterparts.
>>
>> I have wasted a ton of time (and therefore WMPL money), before I decided
>> to use state-of-the-art commercial solutions for the needs described above.
>> Don't be like me. Don't make other people think & act like I did. Be
>> smarter.
>>
>> Should we use an *equivalent* open source solution when one is
>> available? Yes.
>> Should we have a public list of open source tools needed? Yes.
>> Should we use programmes such as Google Summer of Code to build those
>> tools? Yes.
>>
>> Should we waste time using sub-par solutions or doing work manually? Hell
>> no.
>>
>> *So here's a constructive alternative idea:*
>>
>>- Let's gather the needs and use cases for tools used by WMF and
>>affiliates,
>>- Let's build a list of potential open source 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Gnangarra]

I agree with Fae's proposal if we are using tools that exclude community
members out of safety and privacy concerns then we arent fulfilling the
equity goals. I also recognise that alternatives need to be available but
with no incentive for them to be used then there is no development of such
tools, or improvements to their functionality. Faes proposal is putting the
WMF on notice that there are steps we need to take to ensure equity,
safety, and privacy in participation.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 09:08, Łukasz Garczewski <
lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl> wrote:

> With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing
> solution, it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a
> process to find it before the ban takes effect.
>
> I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public
> Money? Public Code open letter . I am
> wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software.
>
> At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool
> for the job.
>
> Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due to a
> noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for
> everything we do.
>
> Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions, WMPL
> wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not insignificant
> amount of members' time because:
>
>- Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is
>impossible to setup and maintain and has very sparse documentation,
>- CiviCRM, the premier open source CRM solution for NGOs, refuses to
>work correctly after the Wordpress installation is moved to a new URL, and
>documentation isn't helpful.
>
> To my knowledge there are no suitable open source options that would be
> easy-to-use and robust enough to support our needs in both cases and be
> comparable to commercial counterparts.
>
> I have wasted a ton of time (and therefore WMPL money), before I decided
> to use state-of-the-art commercial solutions for the needs described above.
> Don't be like me. Don't make other people think & act like I did. Be
> smarter.
>
> Should we use an *equivalent* open source solution when one is available?
> Yes.
> Should we have a public list of open source tools needed? Yes.
> Should we use programmes such as Google Summer of Code to build those
> tools? Yes.
>
> Should we waste time using sub-par solutions or doing work manually? Hell
> no.
>
> *So here's a constructive alternative idea:*
>
>- Let's gather the needs and use cases for tools used by WMF and
>affiliates,
>- Let's build a list of potential open source replacements and map
>what features are missing,
>- Let's put the word out that we're looking for open source
>replacements where there are none available,
>- Let's embed Wikimedia liaisons in key open source projects to ensure
>our needs and use cases are addressed promptly,
>- Let's use initiatives such as Summer of Code to kickstart building
>some of these tools.
>
> I acknowledge the above is much harder to do than instituting a ban via
> community consensus. It is, however, a much more productive approach and
> will get us to your desired state eventually, and without sabotaging the
> work that needs to happen in the meantime.
>
> Oh, and in case anybody's wondering why we can't build these tools
> in-house:
>
> We could but really, really shouldn't. MediaWiki and the wider Wikimedia
> tech infrastructure is still in need of huge improvements. It would be
> really unwise to distract WMF's development and product teams from these
> goals by requesting they build standard communication or reporting tools.
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 4:42 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
>> As a consequence of the promotion of a Google forms based survey this
>> week by a WMF representative, a proposal on Wikimedia Commons has been
>> started to ban the promotion of surveys which rely on third party
>> sites like Google Forms.[1]
>>
>> Launched today, but already it appears likely that this proposal will
>> have a consensus to support. Considering that Commons is one of our
>> largest Wikimedia projects, there are potential repercussions of
>> banning the on-wiki promotion of surveys which use Google products or
>> other closed source third party products like SurveyMonkey.
>>
>> Feedback is most welcome on the proposal discussion, or on this list
>> for handling impact, solutions, recommended alternatives that already
>> exist, or the future role of the WMF to support research and surveys
>> for the WMF and affiliates by using forking open source software and
>> self-hosting and self-managing data "locally".
>>
>> Links
>> 1.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Use_of_off-wiki_surveys_using_third-party_tools
>>
>> Thanks
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> #WearAMask
>>
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

[Łukasz Garczewski]

With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing solution,
it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a process to
find it before the ban takes effect.

I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public
Money? Public Code open letter . I am
wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software.

At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool for
the job.

Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due to a
noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for
everything we do.

Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions, WMPL
wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not insignificant
amount of members' time because:

   - Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is
   impossible to setup and maintain and has very sparse documentation,
   - CiviCRM, the premier open source CRM solution for NGOs, refuses to
   work correctly after the Wordpress installation is moved to a new URL, and
   documentation isn't helpful.

To my knowledge there are no suitable open source options that would be
easy-to-use and robust enough to support our needs in both cases and be
comparable to commercial counterparts.

I have wasted a ton of time (and therefore WMPL money), before I decided to
use state-of-the-art commercial solutions for the needs described above.
Don't be like me. Don't make other people think & act like I did. Be
smarter.

Should we use an *equivalent* open source solution when one is available?
Yes.
Should we have a public list of open source tools needed? Yes.
Should we use programmes such as Google Summer of Code to build those
tools? Yes.

Should we waste time using sub-par solutions or doing work manually? Hell
no.

*So here's a constructive alternative idea:*

   - Let's gather the needs and use cases for tools used by WMF and
   affiliates,
   - Let's build a list of potential open source replacements and map what
   features are missing,
   - Let's put the word out that we're looking for open source replacements
   where there are none available,
   - Let's embed Wikimedia liaisons in key open source projects to ensure
   our needs and use cases are addressed promptly,
   - Let's use initiatives such as Summer of Code to kickstart building
   some of these tools.

I acknowledge the above is much harder to do than instituting a ban via
community consensus. It is, however, a much more productive approach and
will get us to your desired state eventually, and without sabotaging the
work that needs to happen in the meantime.

Oh, and in case anybody's wondering why we can't build these tools in-house:

We could but really, really shouldn't. MediaWiki and the wider Wikimedia
tech infrastructure is still in need of huge improvements. It would be
really unwise to distract WMF's development and product teams from these
goals by requesting they build standard communication or reporting tools.

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 4:42 PM Fæ  wrote:

> As a consequence of the promotion of a Google forms based survey this
> week by a WMF representative, a proposal on Wikimedia Commons has been
> started to ban the promotion of surveys which rely on third party
> sites like Google Forms.[1]
>
> Launched today, but already it appears likely that this proposal will
> have a consensus to support. Considering that Commons is one of our
> largest Wikimedia projects, there are potential repercussions of
> banning the on-wiki promotion of surveys which use Google products or
> other closed source third party products like SurveyMonkey.
>
> Feedback is most welcome on the proposal discussion, or on this list
> for handling impact, solutions, recommended alternatives that already
> exist, or the future role of the WMF to support research and surveys
> for the WMF and affiliates by using forking open source software and
> self-hosting and self-managing data "locally".
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Use_of_off-wiki_surveys_using_third-party_tools
>
> Thanks
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> #WearAMask
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>


-- 

Z poważaniem · Kind regards

Łukasz Garczewski

Dyrektor ds. operacyjnych · Chief Operating Officer

Wikimedia Polska


tel: +48 601 827 937

e-mail: lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl



Wesprzyj wolną wiedzę!
Przekaż 1% podatku lub wpłać darowiznę na rzecz Wikipedii


ul. Tuwima 95, pok. 15 Łódź, Polska

[Wikimedia-l] It's Black Wiki History Month: Virtual Events Guide + Wiki Scholars Search

[AfroCROWD]

The AfroCROWD Wikipedia Bulletin
February, 2021
Black History Month!

Catch up & connect with AfroCROWD: the initiative to increase awareness of
the Wikimedia and free knowledge, culture, and software movements among
potential editors of African descent!
[1] Join us for Black Wiki History Monthon Wikipedia!

Check out these virtual events

from Lagos to Los Angeles with AfroCROWD and partners.

All events are afree and open to all.

February [2] 25th,[3] 26th and [4] 27th2021

[5] Black Wiki History Month 2021 at

[6] the Schomburg Center Online

February 25

10:30 AM - 2:00 PM PST / 1:30 PM - 5:00 PM EST
Partners: AfroCROWD joins NYU LA, Young Entertainment Activists, the Schomburg 
Center in Harlem, ImageNation Cinema and Wikimedia New York City

Guest speaker: ImageNation Cinema founder [7] Moikgantsi Kgama

[8] Click here to register directly
[9] Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest [10] into Wikipedia 
Editathon, 2021
 February 26

1:00 PM - 5:00 PM PST / 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM EST

Partners: AfroCROWD and Oregon State University with News On Wiki and Spelman 
College's Dr. Alexandria Lockett.

Guest Speaker: [11] Spelman College's Dr. Alexandria Lockett

[12] Click here to register directly via Oregon State University

[13] Black History Month Nigeria, 2021 - Celebrating Women Leaders in

[14] Africa's Diaspora

February 27

17:30 - 20:00 PM UTC / 12:30 PM - 3:00 PM EST

Partners: AfroCROWD joins with WIkimedia Nigeria and African Women On Board and 
the Wiki Cari Community

Guest Speaker: Author [15] Lola Akinmade Åkerström

[16] Click here to register directly for BHM Nigeria 2021
Opportunity:

Wiki Education is looking for

Black Wiki History Scholars!

In celebration of Black History Month, Wiki Education is running a [17] 6-week 
Wiki Scholars course to expand Wikipedia's coverage of Black biographies.

In our virtual courses, Wikipedia experts train scholars, scientists, and other 
subject-matter experts how to add information to Wikipedia, especially to 
improve its quality and equity. For this course, participants will add or 
improve biographies of notable Black people to Wikipedia, and we still have a 
few open spots that we'd like to offer to Wikipedia affiliates whose members 
may be looking for more guidance as they join the community.

Background

Last month, we celebrated [18] Wikipedia's 20th birthday, and we're so proud of 
how far this collaborative, open-source project has come in 2 decades. However, 
Wikipedia still has a long way to go for gender parity and racial equity, and 
this project can help ensure millions of people can learn about notable Black 
people who are currently underrepresented on Wikipedia.

Course details

Course dates: February 22 – March 29, 2021 (6 weeks)
Time commitment per week: 1 hour weekly collaborative meeting, 2 hours 
independent work
Meeting time: We will select the day and time of meetings according to 
applicants’ availability. Please select your available time(s) during the 
application process.
Goal: Selected participants will develop at least one Wikipedia biography of a 
notable Black figure currently underrepresented on Wikipedia.
[19] Apply for Black History Wiki Scholars

[20] Apply for Black History Wiki Scholars

Do you have your own Wikipedia Account yet? Click below to sign up!

[21] Sign up for your own Wikipedia account and user name

[22] View this email in your browser

You are receiving this email because of your relationship with Afrocrowd. 
Please [23] reconfirmyour interest in receiving emails from us. If you do not 
wish to receive any more emails, you can [24] unsubscribe here.


 References:

1. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41E=11EB79F=77108=0=1
2. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD94D=11EB79F=77108=0=1
3. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41B=11EB79F=77108=0=1
4. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD94E=11EB79F=77108=0=1
5. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD419=11EB79F=77108=0=1
6. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD419=11EB79F=77108=0=2
7. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41A=11EB79F=77108=0=1
8. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD94D=11EB79F=77108=0=2
9. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41B=11EB79F=77108=0=2
10. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41B=11EB79F=77108=0=3
11. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41B=11EB79F=77108=0=4
12. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41B=11EB79F=77108=0=5
13. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41C=11EB79F=77108=0=1
14. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41C=11EB79F=77108=0=2
15. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD41D=11EB79F=77108=0=1
16. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD94E=11EB79F=77108=0=2
17. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD4D1=11EB79F=77108=0=1
18. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD4D2=11EB79F=77108=0=1
19. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD4D1=11EB79F=77108=0=2
20. https://kiskeacity.bmetrack.com/c/l?u=BCDD4D1=11EB79F=77108=0=3