[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:44 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some
> of the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that
> we can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own
> work, and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support
> other activities our movement is deploying.
>

This last point—that we can’t fund everything we directly need but are
giving funds to only tangentially related special interest groups—hits home
for me.

With the money allocated to Knowledge Equity in the last couple years, we
could have hired at least a couple more software engineers to do work like
fulfill community wishlist requests. Especially in the context that we have
had to slow growth in the overall WMF budget and hiring, this program feels
particularly absurd.

The simple fact is that this program is being pointed to within the
community (at least on English Wikipedia) as a key example of how some
believe the annual fundraising campaigns are misleading to donors and
collecting funds that go to waste. There are editors gearing up yet again
to potentially run RFCs and pick a fight, despite thoughtful, diligent work
by the fundraising team to do outreach early and work collaboratively with
the community.

It will be sad if we end up having to scale back our primary fundraising
campaign a second year in a row, particularly if it’s over one relatively
small grant program. We should have just stopped this after a first pilot
year and moved on to try less controversial methods to improve knowledge
equity.

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it
> is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century,
> there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific
> progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to
> support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have
> a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program
> has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to
> develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an
> understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will
> feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little
> doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit
> from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn.
>
> So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to
> help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the
> ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors
> donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate
> to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that
> best serve this big picture.
>
> We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best
> situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're
> dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to
> worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we
> may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most
> important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am
> however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many
> other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is
> likely very subjective :)
>
> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.
>>
>> But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where
>> you were saying ?we all should want?.
>>
>> I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity
>> and that probably require outside of the projects programs.
>>
>> As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic
>> discussion but I don?t find where we had it.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner <
>> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Steven,
>>>
>>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>>
>>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>>
>>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>>> Movement.
>>>
>>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Nadee and all, thanks for this update.

I appreciate the trend towards supporting Wikimedia fellows with this
program -- who could help their host organizations learn how to make their
work compatible with free knowledge projects.  They could also bridge our
current wikimedia communities + the sources we draw on, with the
communities working with and through these hosts.  It seems a step in that
direction to ensure that each recipient has some champions within the
current movement, through the updated selection + nomination process.

Lodewijk writes:

> given the large backlog that we're dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm
not very afraid that we'll have to worry about overcrowding in this space
for a while.
> I personally think we may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not
to be the most important funder, but we will have the chance to make a
difference.
> I am however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are
many other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this
is likely very subjective :)

This!  Also, to one of Steven's points, people working on underserved
languages and topics should certainly be able to get sources or equipment
to create media for Commons.  And direct grants in the form of modest
[student] scholarships can be beloved and culturally impactful programs for
building communities of people advancing shared goals. These are not
mutually exclusive.  I'd love to see a portfolio model of ecosystem support
where it is available at every scale from $100- to $100K+.  At which point
we could see where we feel best located to make a difference.

Humidly, SJ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QGXXYZU46E2LDJUD4H72LBZUK4VS5WM7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[effe iets anders]

I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some of
the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that we
can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own work,
and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support other
activities our movement is deploying.

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it
is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century,
there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific
progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to
support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have
a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program
has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to
develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an
understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will
feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little
doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit
from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn.

So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to
help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the
ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors
donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate
to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that
best serve this big picture.

We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best
situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're
dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to
worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we
may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most
important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am
however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many
other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is
likely very subjective :)

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.
>
> But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you
> were saying ?we all should want?.
>
> I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity
> and that probably require outside of the projects programs.
>
> As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic
> discussion but I don?t find where we had it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>
>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>
>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>> Movement.
>>
>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
>> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
>> Organisations.
>>
>> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
>> with us?
>>
>> Thanks a lot :)
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>
> Christophe,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
> the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
> boundary of acceptable initiatives end?
>
> For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to
> fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the
> stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering
> their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase
> the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit
> alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it
> possible for more people to edit the projects.
>
> The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
> funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
> support the projects.
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
>> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Christophe Henner]

That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you were saying ?we all should want?.I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity and that probably require outside of the projects programs.As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic discussion but I don?t find where we had it.Sent from my iPhoneOn Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling  wrote:?On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner  wrote:Hi Steven,If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the project we would actually be missing so much.I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic 
 Wikimedia Organisations. @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with us?Thanks a lot :)ChristopheChristophe, Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the boundary of acceptable initiatives end? For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to m
 ake it possible for more people to edit the projects. The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to support the projects.  On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling  wrote:?This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no de
 monstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are no
 t in fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us money. A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but this is not the way. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena  wrote:Hi all,As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting knowledge equity by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund. Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibilit
 y into the work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the s
 econd round of 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34 AM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>
> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into
> the project we would actually be missing so much.
>
> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
> Movement.
>
> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
> Organisations.
>
> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
> with us?
>
> Thanks a lot :)
>
> Christophe
>

Christophe,

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
boundary of acceptable initiatives end?

For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to fight
climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the stability of
the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering their time.
Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase the pool of
potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit alternative to
Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it possible for more
people to edit the projects.

The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
support the projects.


>
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> ?
> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected
> to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via
> committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no
> demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want
> the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing
> knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program
> is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.
>
> If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on
> underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when
> they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons?
> Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics?
>
> If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic
> privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is
> something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to
> generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice
> and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in
> fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when
> they give us money.
>
> A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how
> each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish
> our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the
> community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully
> agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia
> content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want
> the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money
> and privilege, but this is not the way.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting
>> knowledge equity
>> 
>> by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close
>> knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund.
>> Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year
>> 
>> of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year
>> grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the
>> work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and
>> local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work
>> of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round
>> of grantees
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Wiki Loves Monuments 2023 Starts in September

[Manfred Werner (WMAT)]

Dear esteemed WLM participants and organizers,
We're happy to announce that the WLM 2023 landing page is ready: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2023/Organise/Annoucement 



We anticipate the impressions captured with your camera and invite you 
to visit the WLM 2023 pages at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2023 for 
further information on how to participate in and/or organize the WLM 
Campaign in your region.


Looking forward to your submissions from 1st September - 31st October 
2023 to expand the collection of more than 3,000,000 pictures 
documenting monuments and heritage from all over the world from the last 
twelve iterations of Wiki Loves Monuments.


Kind regards,
Manfred / the team of Wiki Loves Monuments international
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AAJLAZD32JIBC46O65SBO3XVF6TT72NH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Google not indexing Wikisource for last few years now.

[Samuel Klein]

+1 to this!  It can be quite helpful for smaller sites. Thanks for the idea
Tilman.



On Wed, Aug 16, 2023, 3:37 PM Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Apropos Google Search Console:
>
> This might also be an opportunity to make public at least some of the data
> that Search Console provides to site owners. That should enable community
> members (especially from smaller projects) to detect such issues earlier
> and in a more systematic fashion - compared to the kind of experimentation
> on individual URLs that gave rise to
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607 in this case. And also, to take
> a broader view, to think more systematically about content aspects of SEO.
> (Some of the smaller projects have been quite interested in this, see e.g.
> https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Search_engine_optimization .)
> If you are an editor of a non-Wikimedia website, Search Console is a
> standard tool to help understand where your readers are coming from, how
> they may be accessing your work and where your site may have issues
> that prevent them from doing so. There is no reason to assume it couldn't
> be quite useful for editors on Wikimedia wikis too.
>
> Publishing some of the Search Console data was already considered a couple
> of years ago as part of the conversations about
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T172581 . Back then, there was a sense
> that while there might be some privacy considerations regarding the more
> granular data, other parts could be made available with relatively little
> effort.
>
> Regards, Tilman
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 9:41 PM Sohom Datta  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried telling the Google Search Console to index all the
>>> Wikisource language domains? Presumably a Foundation sysadmin would
>>> need to add the ownership verification tokens to do so:
>>> https://search.google.com/search-console/welcome
>>
>>
>> This has already been done for a while.
>>
>>
>>> for what I've read, it suffices to generate a sitemap file with
>>> MediaWiki and how to submit it to Google. There is a script for
>>> that: generateSitemap.php.
>>>
>> Once done, the sitemap has to be updated regularly in order to include
>>> the new pages.
>>
>>
>> I did look into this, but it seems like we do not generate sitemaps for
>> any sites right now ? The closest I got was
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198965 which mentions that we did
>> generate them around 2018 and hosted them on sitemaps.wikimedia.org,
>> however they were recently (in Jun 2023) deleted due to the sitemaps being
>> out of date and not helping our SEO rankings for Wikipedia.
>>
>> Also while digging this up right now, I came across
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332101#8898869 which assumes that
>> Google uses a RCFeed/EventStreams API provided by the Wikimedia Foundation
>> to index pages. Is this true in the case of Wikisource, could it be
>> possible that they (Google) might not be using this for Wikisource and/or
>> Wikisource pages are getting filtered out (on Wikimedia Foundation's end)
>> due to some configuration error ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sohom Datta
>> ---
>> Open-source contributor @Wikimedia, @Chromium
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:59 PM Amir Sarabadani 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607#8846296 and onwards
>>>
>>> Am Di., 1. Aug. 2023 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Lauren Worden <
>>> laurenworde...@gmail.com>:
>>>
 Has anyone tried telling the Google Search Console to index all the
 Wikisource language domains? Presumably a Foundation sysadmin would
 need to add the ownership verification tokens to do so:
 https://search.google.com/search-console/welcome

 -LW

 On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:53 AM Dušan Kreheľ 
 wrote:
 >
 > Hm.
 >
 > Page: La akonca (1888) (be.wikisource.org)
 > Created day with the last modification: 17:26, 7 July 2023‎ CEST
 > Indexed by Google: 7. júl 2023 18:21:14 UTC
 >
 > Not indexed: https://be.wikisource.org/wiki/Alkahol_(1913)
 >
 >
 > 2023-08-01 8:47 GMT+02:00, Bodhisattwa :
 > > Hello all,
 > >
 > > Apologies for cross-posting.
 > >
 > > For those who have not noticed till now, Google is not indexing any
 > > Wikisource language editions for the last couple of years which
 practically
 > > means that any Wikisource contents in any languages, which are being
 > > created in these years, are not searchable on Google and hence
 largely
 > > remain invisible on the web.
 > >
 > > This is an extremely demotivating and frustrating situation for the
 > > existing Wikisource volunteers to witness, draining away all of our
 past
 > > and current efforts to bring and retain viewers, readers, GLAM
 partners and
 > > any potential new editors. We already have a very low awareness and
 > > visibility about Wikisource among general internet users due to
 lack of
 > > organized support in these years but the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Google not indexing Wikisource for last few years now.

[Tilman Bayer]

Apropos Google Search Console:

This might also be an opportunity to make public at least some of the data
that Search Console provides to site owners. That should enable community
members (especially from smaller projects) to detect such issues earlier
and in a more systematic fashion - compared to the kind of experimentation
on individual URLs that gave rise to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607 in this case. And also, to take a
broader view, to think more systematically about content aspects of SEO.
(Some of the smaller projects have been quite interested in this, see e.g.
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Search_engine_optimization .) If
you are an editor of a non-Wikimedia website, Search Console is a standard
tool to help understand where your readers are coming from, how they may be
accessing your work and where your site may have issues that prevent them
from doing so. There is no reason to assume it couldn't be quite useful for
editors on Wikimedia wikis too.

Publishing some of the Search Console data was already considered a couple
of years ago as part of the conversations about
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T172581 . Back then, there was a sense
that while there might be some privacy considerations regarding the more
granular data, other parts could be made available with relatively little
effort.

Regards, Tilman

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 9:41 PM Sohom Datta  wrote:

> Has anyone tried telling the Google Search Console to index all the
>> Wikisource language domains? Presumably a Foundation sysadmin would
>> need to add the ownership verification tokens to do so:
>> https://search.google.com/search-console/welcome
>
>
> This has already been done for a while.
>
>
>> for what I've read, it suffices to generate a sitemap file with MediaWiki
>> and how to submit it to Google. There is a script for
>> that: generateSitemap.php.
>>
> Once done, the sitemap has to be updated regularly in order to include the
>> new pages.
>
>
> I did look into this, but it seems like we do not generate sitemaps for
> any sites right now ? The closest I got was
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198965 which mentions that we did
> generate them around 2018 and hosted them on sitemaps.wikimedia.org,
> however they were recently (in Jun 2023) deleted due to the sitemaps being
> out of date and not helping our SEO rankings for Wikipedia.
>
> Also while digging this up right now, I came across
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332101#8898869 which assumes that
> Google uses a RCFeed/EventStreams API provided by the Wikimedia Foundation
> to index pages. Is this true in the case of Wikisource, could it be
> possible that they (Google) might not be using this for Wikisource and/or
> Wikisource pages are getting filtered out (on Wikimedia Foundation's end)
> due to some configuration error ?
>
> Regards,
> Sohom Datta
> ---
> Open-source contributor @Wikimedia, @Chromium
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:59 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
>> See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607#8846296 and onwards
>>
>> Am Di., 1. Aug. 2023 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Lauren Worden <
>> laurenworde...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Has anyone tried telling the Google Search Console to index all the
>>> Wikisource language domains? Presumably a Foundation sysadmin would
>>> need to add the ownership verification tokens to do so:
>>> https://search.google.com/search-console/welcome
>>>
>>> -LW
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:53 AM Dušan Kreheľ 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hm.
>>> >
>>> > Page: La akonca (1888) (be.wikisource.org)
>>> > Created day with the last modification: 17:26, 7 July 2023‎ CEST
>>> > Indexed by Google: 7. júl 2023 18:21:14 UTC
>>> >
>>> > Not indexed: https://be.wikisource.org/wiki/Alkahol_(1913)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2023-08-01 8:47 GMT+02:00, Bodhisattwa :
>>> > > Hello all,
>>> > >
>>> > > Apologies for cross-posting.
>>> > >
>>> > > For those who have not noticed till now, Google is not indexing any
>>> > > Wikisource language editions for the last couple of years which
>>> practically
>>> > > means that any Wikisource contents in any languages, which are being
>>> > > created in these years, are not searchable on Google and hence
>>> largely
>>> > > remain invisible on the web.
>>> > >
>>> > > This is an extremely demotivating and frustrating situation for the
>>> > > existing Wikisource volunteers to witness, draining away all of our
>>> past
>>> > > and current efforts to bring and retain viewers, readers, GLAM
>>> partners and
>>> > > any potential new editors. We already have a very low awareness and
>>> > > visibility about Wikisource among general internet users due to lack
>>> of
>>> > > organized support in these years but the invisibility on Google
>>> search
>>> > > engine could become the last nail in our coffin, unless it is fixed
>>> soon.
>>> > >
>>> > > There is a phabricator ticket raised by Darwinius back in December
>>> 2022 -
>>> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T325607.
>>> > >
>>> > > 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Christophe Henner]

Hi Steven,If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges into the project we would actually be missing so much.I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement.As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia Organisations. @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fun
 d project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships with us?Thanks a lot :)ChristopheOn Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling  wrote:?This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.If w
 e want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons? Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics? If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when they give us money. A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our mission 
 is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all* knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but this is not the way. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena  wrote:Hi all,As part of the Wikimedia Foundation?s Annual Plan goal around supporting knowledge equit
 y by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund. Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round of grantees from the Knowledge Equity Fund. This second round includes seven grantees that span fiv
 e regions, including the Fund?s first-ever grantees in Asia. This diverse group of grantees was chosen from an initial pool of 42 nominations, which were received from across the Wikimedia movement through an open survey in 2022 and 2023. Each grantee aligns with one of Fund?s five focus areas, identified to address persistent structural barriers experienced by communities of color that pre
 vent equitable access and participation in open knowledge. They are also recognized nonprofits with a proven track record of impact in their region. The grantees include:Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, Indonesia: The Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, or the Alliance of the Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN for short), is a non-profit organization based in Indonesia that works on human rights, journalism, and advocacy issues for indigenous people. Black Cultural Archives, United Kingdom: Black Cultural Archives is a Black-led archive and heritage center that preserves and gives access to the histories of African and Caribbean people in the UK. Create Caribbean Res
 earch Institute, Commonwealth of Dominica: Create Caribbean Research Institute is the first digital humanities center in the Caribbean. Criola, Brazil: Criola is a civil society organization, based in Rio de Janeiro, dedicated to advocating for 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected
to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via
committees or visibility into the work. It’s that the work had no
demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want
the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing
knowledge—it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program
is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.

If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on
underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when
they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons?
Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics?

If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic
privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is
something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to
generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice
and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in
fact our organization’s mission and what donors think they are funding when
they give us money.

A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how each
grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish our
mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the community
and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully agree that we
should find ways to correct for the fact that Wikimedia content tends to
reflect the unjust past and present of the world. We want the sum of *all*
knowledge, not just knowledge from/for people with money and privilege, but
this is not the way.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:25 AM Nadee Gunasena 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As part of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Annual Plan goal around supporting
> knowledge equity
> 
> by supporting regional and thematic strategies, and helping close
> knowledge gaps, I wanted to share an update on the Knowledge Equity Fund.
> Earlier this year, the Foundation shared learnings from the first year
> 
> of the Knowledge Equity Fund pilot, as well as reports from our first year
> grantees. These learnings include how we can increase visibility into the
> work of the grantees, and also connect the grantees with Wikimedians and
> local communities to enable greater understanding and more ties to the work
> of free knowledge on the Wikimedia projects.
>
> With these learnings in mind, today we are announcing the second round of
> grantees
> 
> from the Knowledge Equity Fund. This second round includes seven grantees
> that span five regions, including the Fund’s first-ever grantees in Asia.
> This diverse group of grantees was chosen from an initial pool of 42
> nominations, which were received from across the Wikimedia movement through
> an open survey in 2022 and 2023. Each grantee aligns with one of Fund’s five
> focus areas
> ,
> identified to address persistent structural barriers experienced by
> communities of color that prevent equitable access and participation in
> open knowledge. They are also recognized nonprofits with a proven track
> record of impact in their region. The grantees include:
>
> Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, Indonesia: The Aliansi Masyarakat Adat
> Nusantara , or the Alliance of the Indigenous
> Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN for short), is a non-profit organization
> based in Indonesia that works on human rights, journalism, and advocacy
> issues for indigenous people.
>
> Black Cultural Archives, United Kingdom: Black Cultural Archives
>  is a Black-led archive and heritage
> center that preserves and gives access to the histories of African and
> Caribbean people in the UK.
>
> Create Caribbean Research Institute, Commonwealth of Dominica: Create
> Caribbean Research Institute is the
> first digital humanities center in the Caribbean.
>
> Criola, Brazil: Criola  is a civil society
> organization, based in Rio de Janeiro, dedicated to advocating for the
> rights of Black women in Brazilian society.
>
> Data for Black Lives, United States: Data for Black Lives
>  is a movement of activists, organizers, and
> scientists committed to the mission of using data to create concrete and
> measurable change in the lives of Black people.
>
> Filipino American National Historical Society,