[Wikimedia-l] Re: A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Victoria,

It appears you misread the sentence in question. Smallbones was talking
about a hypothetical future in which the Russian government might block
both Wikipedia and VPNs. This would result in the articles being written by
Ukrainians, and given that Ruviki copies most of its content from the
Russian Wikipedia, they would (in that hypothetical future) have to somehow
adjust the content of these articles.

At any rate, Smallbones has answered you on the talk page.

(I personally had no involvement in the article. I only read it after
publication.)

Best,
Andreas

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:53 AM Victoria Doronina 
wrote:

> Hello Andreas,
>
> >In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between
> Russian wikis
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/In_the_media
>
> It's sad to see the Signpost perpetuating the hoax that "[Russian
> Wikipedia] articles on the Russian invasion of Ukraine
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine>... [were]... 
> originally
> written by Ukrainians". After a balanced description of the diverse editors
> of the Russian Wikipedia, which come from all over the world, why is there
> a sudden support of Russian propaganda?
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:46 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 7 – 16 May 2024
>> --
>>
>> News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/News_and_notes
>>
>> Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of
>> administrators?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Special_report
>>
>> Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over –
>> arbitration from '22 to '24
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Arbitration_report
>>
>> In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between
>> Russian wikis
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/In_the_media
>>
>> Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads
>> infrastructure
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Op-Ed
>>
>> Comix: Generations
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Comix
>>
>> Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Traffic_report
>>
>>
>> Single-page view
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>>
>>
>>
>> https://facebook.com/wikisignpost
>>
>> https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>>
>> https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
>>
>> ___
>> 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/MJSILF2RAR2PG5FY3DMVDS73LO6LRSUV/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> 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/OXWVESNCFYGEBU4GCUZITGEA2WTMK6UR/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/2IAVOLZUZOQMH7GMFCSKFPZODFYDQODQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 7 – 16 May 2024
--

News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/News_and_notes

Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of
administrators?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Special_report

Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over –
arbitration from '22 to '24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Arbitration_report

In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian
wikis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/In_the_media

Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads
infrastructure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Op-Ed

Comix: Generations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Comix

Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/MJSILF2RAR2PG5FY3DMVDS73LO6LRSUV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Persian Wikipedia passing 1 million article milestone

[Andreas Kolbe]

Congratulations.

This seems somewhat poignant given that User:Mardetanha, who probably
had a significant
hand

in this achievement, was recently globally banned by the WMF (see current
Signpost issue, News and Notes

).

Can anyone shed light on the background here?

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 2:58 PM Valentin NASIBU 
wrote:

> Félicitations拾
>
> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2024 à 11:30, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Congratulations!
>>
>> We made a tweet at Basque Wikipedia to celebrate it:
>> https://twitter.com/euwikipedia/status/1782832871373234627
>>
>> @Wikipedia or @wikimedia didn't say a word. Another lost opportunity.
>>
>> Galder
>> --
>> *From:* Bobby Shabangu 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2024 3:58 AM
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Persian Wikipedia passing 1 million article
>> milestone
>>
>> Congrats to the Persian Wikipedia!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 22:08, Abiba Pauline TRAORÉ 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Impressionnant !
>> Bravooo﫶
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 16:01 Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> Persian Wikipedia (fa.wikipedia.org) which recently celebrated its 20th
>> birthday just passed its 1,000,000 article milestone.
>>
>> Many volunteers have built, contributed, protected and loved this wiki
>> for the past two decades and here's to many more decades to come.
>>
>> It has been a bumpy road but providing a free source of information to
>> more than 130M Persian language speakers has always been a pleasure,
>> especially when the concepts of fact and truth are under threat like never
>> before.
>>
>> Persian Wikipedia is being viewed by around 30M people monthly and has
>> had 350M page views every month while only ~1,500 active editors [1] and
>> ~35 admins have been keeping it alive and protecting it from all types of
>> harm.
>>
>> [1] Users making more than five edits in the past 30 days
>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/fa.wikipedia.org/contributing/active-editors/normal|line|2-year|(page_type)~content*non-content|monthly
>>
>> Here is to volunteers of Persian Wikipedia
>>
>> --
>> Amir (he/him)
>>
>> ___
>> 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/2KUUG6DGHISWHQVNMTZXXUV7CBHNIZWS/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> 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/M7ADW454DBUBUKVIUGVRF463US56X2A2/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> 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/SAG4CWUH4SJRPRJL3R7ODQJPE5VEPDBG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> 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/DZCZG7JYHYXZCOL37FX5UDHRQBCVWWG2/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/NHHJER77MWQKPDVGCCEO7Y6WZZ2IPAJX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 6 – 25 April 2024
--

In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars
over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/In_the_media

News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight
U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/News_and_notes

WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/WikiConference_report

WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/WikiProject_report

Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/Recent_research

Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/AWDJEKRG6YYZVC5CJB227R4MTDLJE6ZS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 4 – 2 March 2024
--

News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin
inadvertently caught in the net"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-02/News_and_notes

Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-02/Recent_research

In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV,
and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-02/In_the_media

Obituary: Vami_IV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-02/Obituary

Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-02/Traffic_report

WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-02/WikiCup_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/4KTFZH2QA5E7IFEH2ZV3ENFALU5ZNHD4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 3 – 13 February 2024
--

News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by
Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/News_and_notes

Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/Disinformation_report

Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to
dramatically improve images of flora and fauna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/Gallery

In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/In_the_media

Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/Serendipity

Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/Traffic_report

Crossword: Our crossword to bear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/Crossword

Comix: Strongly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-02-13/Comix


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/3UDOIW2JH4JURNREQRCXECZCJINTHONJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 2 – 31 January 2024
--

News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/News_and_notes

Opinion: Until it happens to you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/Opinion

Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/Disinformation_report

In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the
race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/In_the_media

In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/In_focus

Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic
openness and rules constraining [admins]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/Recent_research

Comix: We've all got to start somewhere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/Comix

Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-31/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/UW5NBMYEIO5ZPRF2P74ABDA274QFFLJS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

[Andreas Kolbe]

+1.

Thank you very much, FJ. This is good to see, especially in such an unhappy
time as the present one.

Deserves to be shared widely.

Andreas

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:09 PM Farah Jack Mustaklem 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia community,
> Today marks our friend Osama's thirtieth birthday, which, instead of
> celebrating with his loved ones, he is spending in jail serving a 32 year
> sentence.
> Osama was an asset to the Wikimedia community and he is dearly missed.
> Today, several civil society organizations have come together to wish him
> a happy birthday and call for his and Ziyad's release.
>
>
> https://dco-tn.org/f/birthday-in-jail-saudi-wikipedian-osama-khalid-remains-unjustly
> Happy birthday Osama!
>
> ___
> 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/KMGS72HYAIZXIIFQH3RKFX2SDL7RSSLM/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/4BJZVA4ZK27ICTIDJWMUVBT6UOB6PZ77/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] The first Signpost issue of 2024 is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

As we start 2024, here is the first Signpost issue of the New Year ... and
it also marks the Signpost's 19th birthday:


The Signpost – Volume 20, Issue 1 – 10 January 2024
--

>From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/From_the_editor

Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/Special_report

Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/Technology_report

News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/News_and_notes

In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/In_focus

In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human
being at Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/In_the_media

WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/WikiProject_report

Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/Obituary

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/Traffic_report

Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/Crossword

Comix: Conflict resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-01-10/Comix


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/XP2YY3C3KIQ5YIBRLKPDMDWE4O6ZUQCU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 23 – 4 December 2023
--

News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following
posts on Wikipediocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/News_and_notes

In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and
inspiring Bhutanese nuns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/In_the_media

Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Disinformation_report

In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/In_focus

Comix: Bold comics for a new age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Comix

Essay: I am going to die
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Essay

Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Featured_content

Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November
Rain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Traffic_report

Humour: Mandy Rice-Davis Applies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Humour


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/44HI2DHTHV7R63CSPV7TLXDCDPJNP6SO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 22 – 20 November 2023
--

In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/In_the_media

News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/News_and_notes

Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/Traffic_report

Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/Recent_research

Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/Wikimania


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/LGL4RT45J55AAJBKJHJEYMJB75KZPSYV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 21 – 6 November 2023
--

Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other
admin who was extremely banned in 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Arbitration_report

In the media: UK gov bigwig accused of ripping off WP articles for book,
Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/In_the_media

News and notes: Board candidacy process posted, editors protest WMF privacy
measure, sweet meetups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/News_and_notes

Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Opinion

WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/WikiCup_report

News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/News_from_Wiki_Ed

Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two
decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Recent_research

Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Featured_content

Wikidata: Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets on
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Wikidata

Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/LWQLHMFYRT3HJRA66HQWVVDNMMGRFWR7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new-ish Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

I seem to be a couple of days late announcing the latest issue of your
favourite newspaper in this corner of cyberspace, The Signpost. Well, if
you haven't read it yet, here are links to this issue's articles:

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 20 – 23 October 2023
--

News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/News_and_notes

In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the
original collaborative writing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/In_the_media

Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images
to make massive improvements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/Gallery

Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/Featured_content

Traffic report: The calm and the storm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/Traffic_report

News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/News_from_Diff

Humour: New citation template introduced for divine revelations, drug use,
and really thinking about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-23/Humour


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/6RXYAWGL6CJ6F2XA5ZT3OWQJTUCV6Q2E/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

To give an example of how human rights organisations deal with
Internet-related cases in Saudi Arabia, the Amnesty International website
has a page titled "*Saudi Arabia: Release activist jailed for 34yrs for
tweets: Salma al-Shehab*":

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde23/5961/2022/en/

This gives an overview of the facts of the case and calls for the
prisoner's immediate and unconditional release. It then presents a model
letter titled "*URGENT ACTION* Release activist jailed for 34 yrs for
tweets" and invites members of the public to write an appeal, based on his
model letter or in their own words, addressed to the Office of His Majesty
the King at the Royal Court in Riyadh.

Is it the Wikimedia Foundation Human Rights Team's contention that it would
be harmful to Osama's and Ziyad's interests to have similar pages for them
on the websites of Amnesty International and other human rights
organisations? And that it would be harmful to Osama and Ziyad to have
members of the community and the wider public write letters to the Saudi
Royal Court, calling for their release?

Andreas



On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:44 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> This does indeed seem to make some assumptions:
> * That WMF is not already in contact with relevant human rights
> organizations
> * That including these individuals in a writing campaign is indeed
> considered the best approach to help them at this point
> * That a public association of this type is considered a best practice
> regarding the safety of other Wikimedians who are at risk, both now and in
> the future
>
> I'm not sure if I see the benefit of tying a collaboration regarding the
> safety of individuals to a writing effort on Wikipedia. Shouldn't we be
> interested in improving those articles regardless? Wouldn't human rights
> organizations care about individuals such as these regardless? Tying them
> together could come across like we're horse trading - which would reflect
> poorly on both efforts on such a sensitive topic.
>
> I don't have the insight whether these assumptions would hold - but I
> appreciate your thinking along. What I hear throughout the discussion, is a
> group of community members that care, and seem to offer to help. I hope
> that the WMF human rights team takes that information into account as they
> evaluate the options. But I also realize that they do have a full plate,
> and responding to these discussions is probably not their first priority. I
> hope some of the voices here will participate in the to-be-announced office
> hours.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:12 PM Lauren Worden 
> wrote:
>
>> There are some good ideas in this thread, but nothing concrete,
>> actionable, and to which Foundation officials have been able and
>> willing to give a clear, simple yes or no answer. Here is a simple and
>> concrete proposal which could be started immediately:
>>
>> Foundation personnel should reach out to Amnesty International
>> leadership (i.e.,
>>
>> https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/secretary-general-and-senior-leadership-team/
>> )
>> asking them to include the jailed Arabic Wikipedia administrators in
>> their Write for Rights campaign
>> (https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/write-for-rights/) and in
>> return offering to fund a Wikipedian in Residence editor position at a
>> level sufficient to improve the articles on subjects of their
>> campaigns as the availability of reliable sources allow.
>>
>> This would not require public discussion of individual cases by
>> Foundation officials. Presumably the Foundation would be able to act
>> on such a plan without additional authorization from the Trustees.
>>
>> Are there any downsides?
>>
>> -LW
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 9:37 AM Christophe Henner
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Crap I?ve hit sent too early!
>> >
>> > I am not sure it exists, but in line with Lodewijk comment having a
>> guide on how can people help and/or a place where people can list
>> themselves to make it known they can be reached to help on those topics,
>> could be ways to leverage our communities in those instances.
>> >
>> > Christophe
>> >
>> > On Oct 8, 2023, at 6:34?PM, Christophe Henner <
>> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > ?Bassel was at a time when there was little to none activity on those
>> topics.
>> >
>> > Since then the approach got professionalized.
>> >
>> > I understand the lack of information is frustrated, but most of the
>> time any action taken has to be confidential.
>> >
>> > Having been on the o

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

[Andreas Kolbe]

t and frequently these situations are highly complex, we
>>> know that even different expert organizations might rank the risk and the
>>> right response of a specific situation differently. We have sometimes
>>> sought multiple opinions on a case. At the end of the day, we collaborate
>>> closely with relevant groups on our response to ensure the safety and
>>> well-being of individuals affected and the broader community members who
>>> could be impacted. We do the best we can to uphold the principles of free
>>> knowledge while prioritizing safety for everyone.
>>>
>>> While I can’t discuss specific cases, I am always happy to talk about
>>> general matters of policy and approach in my quarterly community
>>> conversations. We will also answer questions to the extent that we believe
>>> we safely can that are posed about the team’s work to
>>> talktohumanrig...@wikimedia.org. Depending on the case,the human rights
>>> team may provide ways to help or avenues to connect with  organizations who
>>> are supporting. They may also be able to advise when silence is regarded as
>>> the best response. (There are some risks to being too open about who we
>>> work with and how we work that we need to consider every time.)
>>>
>>> People can read more generally about the human rights team
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Team> here.
>>>
>>> While this is not my area of focus in my role at the Foundation, I also
>>> want to generally call out that the Foundation also conducts human rights
>>> advocacy routinely in regards to legislation. Our Global Advocacy
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Advocacy> team not only meets
>>> with legislators around the world to fight for the rights that keep free
>>> knowledge free, but also considers and guides our work by providing
>>> proactive human rights assessments and policy development, such as the Human
>>> Rights Policy
>>> <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy>.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Maggie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:14 AM Lauren Worden 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear WMF Human Rights Team:
>>>>
>>>> I would like some clarification on your statement below. In
>>>> particular, does your stated approach allow you to follow the best
>>>> practices described at
>>>> https://freedomhouse.org/2023/summit-for-democracy-political-prisoners
>>>> to, e.g., "meet regularly with family members of political prisoners,
>>>> advocacy groups, and media outlets and journalists, in public and in
>>>> private, in their efforts to secure an individual’s release"?
>>>>
>>>> The literature review at
>>>> https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/17277 states:
>>>> "The theoretical and empirical literature attributes several potential
>>>> roles to civil society in [security sector and justice reform]. These
>>>> include making security and justice institutions accountable,
>>>> mobilising a range of social groups for reform, publicising abuses and
>>>> advocating for reform, offering technical expertise, and improving
>>>> security-citizen relations."
>>>>
>>>> If the Foundation staff has prohibited itself from engaging with the
>>>> public on freeing jailed wikipedians, orchestrating letter writing
>>>> campaigns, or coordinating with other NGOs and government agencies,
>>>> such as those Andreas has described as having no record of the
>>>> imprisoned Arabic Wikipedia administrators, then I would hope that the
>>>> CEO or Trustees would step in immediately to rectify any internal
>>>> policies such that best practices can be upheld.
>>>>
>>>> -LW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 3:51 PM WMF Human Rights
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > In the interest of safeguarding confidential information and ensuring
>>>> the safety of our community members, the Foundation will not publicly
>>>> disclose details regarding human rights cases. The Human Rights Team
>>>> recently updated its meta page to clarify this approach. Our primary
>>>> concern is to uphold the safety and privacy of everyone involved. At the
>>>> same time, our inability to discuss these matters should not

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 19 – 3 October 2023
--

News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/News_and_notes

In the media: History is written by whoever can harness the most editors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/In_the_media

Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about
limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/Recent_research

Featured content: By your logic,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/Featured_content

Concept: Wikipedia policies from other worlds: WP:NOANTLERS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/Concept

Poetry: "The Sight"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/Poetry

Traffic report: There shall be no slaves in the land of lands, it's a
Bollywood jam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-10-03/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/IGENTFMOI7LPV7GYOZVIFGG35HJTA2KH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

[Andreas Kolbe]

Let's put it a different way then:

Is anyone at the WMF doing anything in support of the two jailed Saudi
Wikimedians, be it liaising with international or regional human rights
organisations, the US State Department, briefing journalists so the wider
public is aware of the situation, or anything else to make sure Osama and
Ziyad aren't forgotten about as they start (by my calculation) their fourth
year in jail?

I am asking because the press reports published at the start of this year
do not seem to have led to any significant coverage of the two Wikimedians'
plight on the websites of major human rights organisations. (If I have
missed any, please let me know.)

For example, I found nothing at all on the website of Reporters without
Borders. Similarly, the most recent Amnesty International report on the
"crackdown on online expression" in Saudi Arabia includes several mentions
of Twitter users but none of Wikipedians:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/02/saudi-arabia-alarming-crackdown-on-online-expression/

Amnesty's report specifically mentions that a Twitter user was sentenced
for supporting women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul but fails to
mention that one of the jailed Wikimedians uploaded Loujain al-Hathloul's
Commons picture, which is used in her Wikipedia articles.

I didn't find anything about Osama and Ziyad or, more generally,
Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia on the website of the EFF.

There is a mention of Osama and Ziyad and the fact that they were
Wikipedians on the PEN website:

https://pen.org/report/freedom-to-write-index-2022/

The U.S. State Department's 2022 country report on Saudi Arabia, published
in March 2023, includes a mention of Osama's 32-year prison sentence, but
doesn't make clear that he was jailed for being a Wikipedian, and Ziyad is
not mentioned:

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/saudi-arabia/

Will this be remedied in the U.S. State Department's 2023 country report? I
think each country report covers the period up to October of the preceding
year, so this month will be the last chance to make sure the 2023 report
published next spring will include information on Osama and Ziyad's prison
sentences and their Wikipedia activity.

Andreas



On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:09 PM The Cunctator  wrote:

> Frankly, that's implausible.
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 3:37 PM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> I do think that posting any kind of response to these questions *on a
>> public mailing list* would do more harm than good. Thank you.
>>
>> Best,
>> DerHexer
>> *Wikimedia Steward*
>>
>> Am Montag, 25. September 2023 um 21:20:21 MESZ hat Andreas Kolbe <
>> jayen...@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As there was a recent press mention of Osama and Ziyad[1] (see "In the
>> Media" in the current Signpost issue) – does the WMF's Human Rights Team
>> (cc'ed) have any update on their situation?
>>
>> Has anyone else heard any news? If I recall correctly, Osama had married
>> not long before being jailed in 2020 – has anyone been in touch with his
>> wife?
>>
>> Is there anything the community can do?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_imprisoned_for_editing_Wikipedia
>> ___
>> 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/CSBF3UGYR7BDU5XPYZFYQAABPXXY5PDG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> 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/XMEMSGXX7XH3R7MSYZFGKR6PMRCWDDKB/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> 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/YKDNQDXMBNSD7OX6YKLN4RLJAYWC5WGO/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_

[Wikimedia-l] Osama and Ziyad

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

As there was a recent press mention of Osama and Ziyad[1] (see "In the
Media" in the current Signpost issue) – does the WMF's Human Rights Team
(cc'ed) have any update on their situation?

Has anyone else heard any news? If I recall correctly, Osama had married
not long before being jailed in 2020 – has anyone been in touch with his
wife?

Is there anything the community can do?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_imprisoned_for_editing_Wikipedia
___
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/CSBF3UGYR7BDU5XPYZFYQAABPXXY5PDG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 18 – 16 September 2023
--

News and notes: Wikimedia power sharing – just an advisory role for the
volunteer community?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/News_and_notes

In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/In_the_media

Obituary: Nosebagbear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/Obituary

Serendipity: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no paywall, for thou, Wikipedia Library, art with me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/Serendipity

Featured content: Catching up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/Featured_content

Concept: Strange portal opened by CERN researchers brings Wikipedia
articles from "other worlds"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/Concept

Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/DDM5NUX63HADHCUQB4R2VIISLYDJMIRS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Post-Wikimania Covid cases

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi all,

I've heard from a couple of Wikimania attendees that they got ill with
Covid after Wikimania Singapore.

Just wondering – are those exceptional cases, or did this happen to a
substantial number of participants?

Best,
Andreas
___
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/7SSVTZ3GTWVL2L675BVQ3ODT4G3ORSKC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 17 – 31 August 2023
--

>From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/From_the_editor

News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/News_and_notes

In the media: Taking it sleazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/In_the_media

Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration
between Commons and Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/Recent_research

Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/Draftspace

Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/Humour

Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-31/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/3HCSSNJQROPR63JIHCFHJQAWUDYLBNHP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "Jimmy is back..."

[Andreas Kolbe]

Todd, Romaine and all,

Julia Brungs generally puts up sample emails for review here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#Current_fundraising_activities

Copies of Dutch sample emails are linked there.

I remember there were discussions between Wikimedia Netherlands, the
community and the WMF last year, and there was a commitment made by the WMF
that the Dutch community would be involved this year.

See also last year's press report  in de
Volkskrant.

Andreas

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 6:20 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Could you provide a copy of the email, or at least its text? When
> discussing something like this, it's helpful to see exactly what we're
> talking about.
>
> Todd
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:07 AM Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
>> This was the title of a message on the Help Desk of the Dutch Wikipedia
>> earlier this month. The title refers to the fundraising e-mail a reader of
>> Wikipedia received so-called with a message from Jimmy Wales, and this
>> reader got very concerned about what he saw as this e-mail looks like to be
>> a scam or spam. The reader asked us: "But isn't this a strange way to
>> collect money? This given the many warnings for not clicking on links in
>> strange e-mails as those are often fraudulent (etc.), this does not seem
>> very reliable to me."
>>
>> It seems that the e-mail came truly from WMF, but the concerns of this
>> reader are something to be aware of.
>>
>> Another user writes he receives fake e-mails almost every day for all
>> kinds of "services" and "requests" which do not feel trustworthy, the same
>> as for this e-mail from WMF.
>>
>> The reaction of another user: please throw this kind of dubious e-mails
>> away quickly, such e-mails can't be trusted.
>>
>> Someone else writes: That donation campaign is very American and the
>> volunteers behind the Dutch Wikipedia have been calling for years against
>> the international Wikimedia organization that this way of raising funds
>> does not work in the Netherlands and Belgium, among others.
>>
>> That last part is I think the essence, for more than a decade WMF
>> organises the fundraising, for more than a decade the Dutch community
>> complains about the way/style/etc of the fundraising, and for more than a
>> decade it is tradition that WMF does do little with the feedback and makes
>> the same mistakes year after year after year...
>>
>>
>> Disappointed greetings,
>> Romaine
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/IDORKN6LOFNMOILHDXQLFAI2W4DSJH45/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> 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/Y2G4WE675YR4QOEPSFAWBAWQXMPBJQMX/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/YTAZQUBEF3ELRLDF5G2IIZUOXPDEGSGE/
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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

There is something that had slipped my mind ... Victoria Doronina said

in
November last year, on-wiki:

"Equity Grants were an idea of the previous CEO who is no longer with the
Foundation so there isn't a chance of them recurring. The Board has done
its main job - changed the CEO."

I thought at the time, with the money having been returned to the WMF, that
the Knowledge Equity Fund had been discontinued. So what happened?

Andreas



On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 5:05 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

> Biyanto,
>
> Thanks for your reply on this, very much appreciate the context and more
> information.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:
>
>
>> From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was designed as an
>> experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge resources on
>> underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen content on the
>> Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a limited pool of
>> funds, our intention is to experiment with different approaches, and see
>> where we can learn what works. The size of the initial Equity Fund, $4.5
>> million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year operating budget,
>> when the Foundation had a budget underrun
>> 
>> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
>> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
>> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>>  for community members and
>> Wikimedia groups.
>>
>
> This budget context is pretty critical context, and as far as I can tell
> isn't clearly communicated on Meta or in the blog posts about the program
> anywhere. Is it somewhere already and I have missed it? I would suggest
> putting something almost exactly like this in an FAQ, because your
> statement here is the clearest thing I've read to date on it.
>
> Ultimately I think to the community of editors and donors it isn't super
> convincing to say "we allocated this $4.5 million (which, to the average
> person who doesn't read our global movement budget and grant reports,
> sounds like an enormous sum of money) and therefore we have to stick to
> that plan despite the fact that we can't measure the impact of this work at
> all". In any healthy functioning organization, if you couldn't get results
> from investing a few million dollars, you'd change the plan and consider
> moving the funds elsewhere after a year.
>
>
>> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
>> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
>> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
>> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
>> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
>> institutions working to create knowledge.
>>
>> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
>> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
>> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
>> . I am coming from Indonesia where
>> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
>> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
>> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
>> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
>> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
>> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
>> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
>> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
>> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
>> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
>> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
>> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
>> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
>> journalists.
>>
>
> It would help if the blog post about learnings from the first year (
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/12/what-weve-learned-from-the-equity-funds-first-round/)
> and a first year report on Meta acknowledged the major gap in ability to
> measure impact.
>
> None of the previous communication really acknowledged this issue in any
> serious way. If the folks working on this at the WMF and the committee do
> agree it is an area for improvement, we should have said that in the
> communication about evaluating the first year and talked openly 

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

I confess I am feeling a little conflicted. For example, I find it hard to
begrudge kids in Dominica the chance to develop some digital skills. If the
money were used effectively to that end, I would be very happy to see that.

The US and UK projects I'm struggling more with. You are telling users in
places like South Africa, India and Brazil that their money "keeps
Wikipedia operational" and are then spending well over a million of it on
first-world projects that have absolutely nothing to do with that (not to
mention spending almost a million on just *two* executives' severance).

Almost any charitable educational use in India or South Africa would serve
a more pressing need than the projects the Knowledge Equity Fund has funded
to date
 in
the US.

Of course you can argue that the WMF is a US "citizen", and a good
corporate citizen should do good in its own society. However, given the
difference in living standards, and the urgency with which money is
demanded in countries vastly poorer than the US or UK, I find this argument
inufficient to dispel my concern.

Andreas

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:59 AM The Cunctator  wrote:

> This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you
> have done and I think this is an excellent project.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is
>> part of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund
>> Committee last year because I believe that our movement needs support from
>> other groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make
>> sure that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
>> strategy.
>>
>> The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
>> under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
>> will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
>> Wikimedia projects in the future.
>>
>> It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia
>> or the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> was designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of
>> knowledge resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to
>> strengthen content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project
>> with a limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
>> approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
>> Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
>> operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun
>> 
>> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
>> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
>> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>>  for community members and
>> Wikimedia groups.
>>
>> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
>> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
>> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
>> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
>> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
>> institutions working to create knowledge.
>>
>> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
>> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
>> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
>> . I am coming from Indonesia where
>> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
>> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
>> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
>> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
>> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
>> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
>> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
>> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
>> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
>> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
>> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
>> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
>> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
>> journalists.
>>
>> I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in
>> the 

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 16 – 15 August 2023
--

News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces
another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/News_and_notes

In the media: An accusation of bias from Brazil, a lawsuit from Portugal,
plagiarism from Florida
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/In_the_media

In focus: 2023 Good Article Nomination drive is underway: get your
barnstars here!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/In_focus

Special report: Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still
from 2005?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Special_report

Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their
copyright, upload them, and restore them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Tips_and_tricks

Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Cobwebs

Opinion: Copyright trolls, or the last beautiful free souls on this planet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Opinion

Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Serendipity

Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Featured_content

Humour: Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable
Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Humour

Traffic report: Come on in, and pull yourself up a chair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/OW642EHHSWSITGGRISJNUTNEDZIWDNZ6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The lack of transparency around the Wikimedia Endowment is reaching new
levels. A week ago, Jayde Antonio posted the minutes for the January 2023
Endowment board meeting on Meta:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment/Meetings/January_19,_2023

These minutes are an exercise in non-communication. You will look in vain
for any *information* in these minutes telling you anything you didn't know
before. For example, we were already told back in February 2023
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph000tle=Wikimedia_Endowment/Meetings/January_19,_2023=24524042>
that
the meeting covered the following agenda items:

6:25 - 6:55 pm UTC: Fundraising Update (Board Chair, Jimmy Wales and
Endowment Director, Amy Parker)

   - FY22-23 year to date update
   - Campaign strategy


So, what do we know now that the actual board-approved minutes have been
posted? All the minutes now say is this:


   - *Fundraising Update* (Amy Parker)
  - FY22-23 year to date update
  - Presentation of campaign strategy


This is actually *less* information than we were given in February. In
February we were at least told at what *time* these dicussions were held:
from "6:25 - 6:55 pm UTC".

As for what Amy actually said: nothing.

The Endowment was set up in early 2016. The community and the wider public
have never seen an audited financial statement. The last time we were told
anything at all about the status of the Endowment was in the January 2022
meeting minutes
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment/Meetings/January_27,_2022>
.

Could we please have an explanation for this complete lack of transparency?

Regards,
Andreas

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:39 PM Jaime Villagomez 
wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Response_to_off-wiki_question_on_mailing_list_about_timeline_for_the_move_of_Endowment_assets_out_of_Tides
> ].
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jaime
>
> Jaime Villagomez
>
> Chief Financial Officer
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 8:59 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its
>> new, transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
>> Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]
>>
>> Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
>> 2021:[2]
>>
>> "We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
>> stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
>> entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
>> determination letter.*"
>>
>> Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
>> announced[4] in late October 2022.
>>
>> Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
>> that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
>> Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
>> accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
>> revenue and expenses.
>>
>> The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
>> 501(c)(3) since 2017.
>>
>> When will the move take place?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
>> and
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
>> [4]
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
>> [5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
>> [6]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
>>> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>>> > Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
>>> their CEO and the En

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out ...

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 15 – 1 August 2023
--

News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder
banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/News_and_notes

In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/In_the_media

Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off
the presses!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Disinformation_report

Obituary: Donald Cram, Peter McCawley, and Eagleash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Obituary

Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips_and_tricks

Humour: Does Wikipedia present neutral perspectives?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Humour

In focus: *Journals cited by Wikipedia*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/In_focus

Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Opinion

Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Featured_content

Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/BDSH7DRPW4UMR63OENAWFT55SUN5AZFY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 14 – 17 July 2023
--

News and notes: Big bux hidden beneath wine-dark sea as we wait for the
Tides to go out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/News_and_notes

In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/In_the_media

Obituary: David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) and Ingo Koll (Kipala)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary

News from the WMF: ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for
fundraising campaigns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/News_from_the_WMF

In focus: Are the children of celebrities over-represented in French cinema?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/In_focus

Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Tips_and_tricks

Recent research: Wikipedia-grounded chatbot "outperforms all baselines" on
factual accuracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Recent_research

Humour: New fringe theories to be introduced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Humour

Cobwebs: If you're reading this, you're probably on a desktop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Cobwebs

Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers
scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Featured_content

Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/XKGZHAW6BGKGAANG5BZBX3E2V6FSIUYX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its new,
transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]

Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
2021:[2]

"We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
determination letter.*"

Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
announced[4] in late October 2022.

Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
revenue and expenses.

The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
501(c)(3) since 2017.

When will the move take place?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
[4]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
[5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857


On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:

> ...
> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
> > Risker/Anne
>
> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
> their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
> either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
> years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
> obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
> and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
> aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
> "non-accountability".
>
> The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
> with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
> the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
> volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
> own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
> transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
> parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
> can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
> pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
> organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
> ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.
>
> * Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
> things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
> confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
> the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
> others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
> that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
> or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
> incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
> responsible for it.
>
> As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
> that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
> wanted them to walk out or put the phone down on me.
>
> Thanks,
> Lane
> ___
> 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/M7NFIYBISPN54CF4CZ5QYKBSIONZ3PKR/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
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/AYE7FIW6HSZI4H4QDUO5GN4X6V4RSMIY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 13 – 3 July 2023
--

News and notes: Online Safety Bill: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK
launch open letter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-03/News_and_notes

Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing
own praises on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-03/Disinformation_report

In the media: Journo proposes mass Wiki dox, sponsored articles on Fandom,
Section 230 discussed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-03/In_the_media

Featured content: Incensed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-03/Featured_content

Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-03/Traffic_report

Humour: United Nations dispatches peacekeeping force to Wikipedia policy
discussions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-03/Humour


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/DBZRKY6GECGMPXKX5VMVFS7VPPGMAKF3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 12 – 19 June 2023
--

News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons
licensing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/News_and_notes

In the media: English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/In_the_media

Featured content: Content, featured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/Featured_content

Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/Recent_research


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/AJZWCI7LAUUFAOUAODDTFPIHHKVVQDBL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 11 – 5 June 2023
--

News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in
top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-05/News_and_notes

In the media: Section 230 stands tall, WP vs. UK bill, Miss Information
dissed again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-05/In_the_media

Featured content: Poetry under pressure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-05/Featured_content

Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-05/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/OSO4Q7O4RCV5IRGF3F7K4TXMEU77BP2C/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 10 – 22 May 2023
--

News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia
Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/News_and_notes

In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/In_the_media

Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews
in Poland"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/Arbitration_report

Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for
Wikipedia editors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/Recent_research

Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/Featured_content

Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/Traffic_report

WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The
First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-22/WikiProject_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/I7ONMSJJPQMOKHWAGHVJVHRZCQA74NKJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2021-2022 now on-wiki

[Andreas Kolbe]

I was wondering the same thing, Paulo.

Victoria did say
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)=prev=1123369545>
last year, on-wiki: The Board has done its main job - changed the CEO.

(Victoria did not provide further details when asked.)

Andreas

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:01 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm a bit lost on this, probably because I'm not familiar with US Work
> laws. Why did Katherine Maher received $623,286 on severance pay? Was she
> fired?
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Andreas Kolbe  escreveu no dia terça, 9/05/2023 à(s)
> 22:17:
>
>> The information is right there, Lodewijk, all you need to do is click the
>> link. The Form 990 discloses
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49>
>>  that
>> the WMF paid five executives a combined total of over $1.2 million in
>> severance pay. About half of this went to Katherine Maher. Individual
>> severance figures are given on page 50
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=50>
>> :
>>
>>- Katherine Maher $623,286 (over 150% of her base compensation in her
>>last full year)
>>- Janeen Uzzell $324,748 (over 100% of her base compensation in her
>>last full year)
>>- Heather Walls $153,612
>>- Lynette Logan $74,645
>>- Anthony Negrin $70,920
>>
>> For historical comparison, the severance payment Lila Tretikov got in
>> 2016 was $262.5K, approx. 77% of her $342K base compensation in 2015, her
>> last full year.
>>
>> So severance payments for top executives seem to be trending up.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:56 PM effe iets anders 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure someone at the Foundation will have a better response, and you
>>> may have puzzled this together yourself already, but we've seen in previous
>>> years that the reported salary went up in the last year of someone's
>>> service, possibly due to consulting fees and severance packages. Both Maher
>>> and Uzzell left the Foundation in 2021. Typically the WMF has been cautious
>>> to give much detail on this though (understandably).
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 10:03 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Page 49 of the new Form 990 (2021) shows the following total
>>>> compensation figures for former CEO Katherine Maher and Janeen Uzzell in
>>>> that year:
>>>>
>>>> *$798,632 and $515,553 *respectively. Both figures far exceed all
>>>> prior records.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49
>>>>
>>>> The Form 990 now shows a total of *six* executives whose total
>>>> compensation exceeded *$400,000*.
>>>>
>>>> For comparison, the Form 990 for the year before (2020) showed a total
>>>> of *eight* executives whose total compensation exceeded *$300,000*:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=48
>>>>
>>>> These are interesting developments.
>>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:25 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation published the Form 990 [1], an
>>>>> informational tax form required annually of all nonprofit organisations
>>>>> based in the US. The Form 990 provides a financial overview of the
>>>>> Foundation, including the balance sheet, revenue and expenses, as well as
>>>>> grantmaking, governance, and other financial policies. It also includes
>>>>> compensation information required for senior executives. This document is
>>>>> reviewed by the Board each year before it is published on the Foundation
>>>>> website.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of reporting periods, the Form 990 provides a look back at the
>>>>> activities and budget for the Foundation in prior years. This year’s Form
>>>>> 990 covers last fiscal year (July 2021-June 2022), and for compensation
>>>>> related reporting, it cove

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2021-2022 now on-wiki

[Andreas Kolbe]

The information is right there, Lodewijk, all you need to do is click the
link. The Form 990 discloses
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49>
that
the WMF paid five executives a combined total of over $1.2 million in
severance pay. About half of this went to Katherine Maher. Individual
severance figures are given on page 50
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=50>
:

   - Katherine Maher $623,286 (over 150% of her base compensation in her
   last full year)
   - Janeen Uzzell $324,748 (over 100% of her base compensation in her last
   full year)
   - Heather Walls $153,612
   - Lynette Logan $74,645
   - Anthony Negrin $70,920

For historical comparison, the severance payment Lila Tretikov got in 2016
was $262.5K, approx. 77% of her $342K base compensation in 2015, her last
full year.

So severance payments for top executives seem to be trending up.

Andreas

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:56 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> I'm sure someone at the Foundation will have a better response, and you
> may have puzzled this together yourself already, but we've seen in previous
> years that the reported salary went up in the last year of someone's
> service, possibly due to consulting fees and severance packages. Both Maher
> and Uzzell left the Foundation in 2021. Typically the WMF has been cautious
> to give much detail on this though (understandably).
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 10:03 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Page 49 of the new Form 990 (2021) shows the following total compensation
>> figures for former CEO Katherine Maher and Janeen Uzzell in that year:
>>
>> *$798,632 and $515,553 *respectively. Both figures far exceed all prior
>> records.
>>
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49
>>
>> The Form 990 now shows a total of *six* executives whose total
>> compensation exceeded *$400,000*.
>>
>> For comparison, the Form 990 for the year before (2020) showed a total of
>> *eight* executives whose total compensation exceeded *$300,000*:
>>
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=48
>>
>> These are interesting developments.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:25 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation published the Form 990 [1], an
>>> informational tax form required annually of all nonprofit organisations
>>> based in the US. The Form 990 provides a financial overview of the
>>> Foundation, including the balance sheet, revenue and expenses, as well as
>>> grantmaking, governance, and other financial policies. It also includes
>>> compensation information required for senior executives. This document is
>>> reviewed by the Board each year before it is published on the Foundation
>>> website.
>>>
>>> Because of reporting periods, the Form 990 provides a look back at the
>>> activities and budget for the Foundation in prior years. This year’s Form
>>> 990 covers last fiscal year (July 2021-June 2022), and for compensation
>>> related reporting, it covers the 2021 calendar year. Because the Form 990
>>> is a tax document with a complicated format, this year the Foundation
>>> has also published a Diff post [2] that provides an overview of the
>>> different sections of the form; an executive summary [3] of the Form, and
>>> an FAQ on Meta [4].
>>>
>>> This year’s Form 990 contains several key takeaways:
>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>Growth in support of Wikimedia projects: In the 2021-2022 fiscal
>>>year, the Foundation invested 77% in Program Services, an increase of 4
>>>percentage points as compared to fiscal year 2020–2021 of 73%. This 
>>> measure
>>>reflects how much of the organisation’s expenses are allocated towards 
>>> the
>>>programs and services that it exists to deliver. This surpasses 
>>> third-party
>>>standards for how much nonprofit organisations should spend on programs,
>>>which should be the majority of their budget (more than 65% according to
>>>the Better Business Bureau).
>>>-
>>>
>>>Increase in community grants: During fiscal year 2021-2022, the
>>>Foundation’s revenue received through donations and grants, totaled 
>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2021-2022 now on-wiki

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

Page 49 of the new Form 990 (2021) shows the following total compensation
figures for former CEO Katherine Maher and Janeen Uzzell in that year:

*$798,632 and $515,553 *respectively. Both figures far exceed all prior
records.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49

The Form 990 now shows a total of *six* executives whose total compensation
exceeded *$400,000*.

For comparison, the Form 990 for the year before (2020) showed a total of
*eight* executives whose total compensation exceeded *$300,000*:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=48

These are interesting developments.

Andreas


On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:25 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation published the Form 990 [1], an
> informational tax form required annually of all nonprofit organisations
> based in the US. The Form 990 provides a financial overview of the
> Foundation, including the balance sheet, revenue and expenses, as well as
> grantmaking, governance, and other financial policies. It also includes
> compensation information required for senior executives. This document is
> reviewed by the Board each year before it is published on the Foundation
> website.
>
> Because of reporting periods, the Form 990 provides a look back at the
> activities and budget for the Foundation in prior years. This year’s Form
> 990 covers last fiscal year (July 2021-June 2022), and for compensation
> related reporting, it covers the 2021 calendar year. Because the Form 990
> is a tax document with a complicated format, this year the Foundation has
> also published a Diff post [2] that provides an overview of the different
> sections of the form; an executive summary [3] of the Form, and an FAQ on
> Meta [4].
>
> This year’s Form 990 contains several key takeaways:
>
>
>-
>
>Growth in support of Wikimedia projects: In the 2021-2022 fiscal year,
>the Foundation invested 77% in Program Services, an increase of 4
>percentage points as compared to fiscal year 2020–2021 of 73%. This measure
>reflects how much of the organisation’s expenses are allocated towards the
>programs and services that it exists to deliver. This surpasses third-party
>standards for how much nonprofit organisations should spend on programs,
>which should be the majority of their budget (more than 65% according to
>the Better Business Bureau).
>-
>
>Increase in community grants: During fiscal year 2021-2022, the
>Foundation’s revenue received through donations and grants, totaled $164.2
>million, a roughly $9 million increase from the prior fiscal year. The
>Foundation increased its grants programme by 50%, from $10.1M in the prior
>fiscal year to $15.2M in fiscal year 2021-2022.
>-
>
>Comprehensive governance policies: The Foundation follows a number of
>best practices for governance as an established nonprofit organisation. The
>Form 990 includes a section confirming written policies regarding our
>approach to conflicts of interest
>,
>protecting whistleblowers
>, 
> guidelines
>for data retention
>
>and governance practices, including those related to the Foundation's Board
>structure, voting rights, and independence. These governance policies and
>practices have helped the Foundation to receive the highest rating from
>sites like Charity Navigator
>.
>-
>
>Leadership Transition: This year’s Form 990 also reports on a period
>of significant leadership transition at the Wikimedia Foundation, including
>the CEO stepping down. The Form includes compensation information as well
>as severance disclosures for Foundation executives who departed in 2021.
>This January, the Wikimedia Foundation introduced a new standardised
>severance policy, which was shared in a Diff post [5]. Separation
>payments to two additional executives that precede the implementation of
>this standardised policy will be disclosed in future Form 990s.
>
>
> Finally, the Form 990 is one of several documents that the Foundation
> publishes each year, to provide more visibility into the budget and how the
> Foundation allocates resources towards its work. In addition to the Form
> 990, you can find additional information in this year’s Annual Plan
> ,
> in the Foundation’s Annual Report
> ,
> and in a series of Diff posts about the Foundation’s compensation
> practices
> 

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 9 – 8 May 2023
--

News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/News_and_notes

In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/In_the_media

Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/Recent_research

Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all
the lists;
My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/Featured_content

Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
approaches conclusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/Arbitration_report

News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/News_from_the_WMF

Special report: There Shall Be Seasons Refreshing – Stories from
WikiConference India 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/Special_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/TCA4ECAZGIL5EMPYG63CTF4AEATDBXOP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Jonathan,

Great post! Thank you for introducing a fresh and compelling perspective
into the conversation, though I would suggest that this needs adjusting to
take into account that Wikimedians' circumstances are vastly different
depnding on where they live – a point I will return to below.

On-wiki, meanwhile, one of the arbitrators, Wugapodes, interprets[1] the
Universal Code of Conduct to mean that sharing another Wikimedian's
personal information and all the other bulletpoint examples of harassment
in the Universal Code of Conduct[2] are *only* unacceptable if the
behaviour fulfils certain criteria laid out in the section's preamble.

This is actually an interesting point. I will explain what he means.

Let's remind ourselves first how the UCoC's Harassment section begins
(emphases mine, in ALLCAPS so they show in the list archive):



3.1 – Harassment

This INCLUDES any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or
upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered
the most likely main outcome. Behaviour can be considered harassment if it
is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment. Harassment often takes the form of
emotional abuse, especially towards people who are in a vulnerable
position, and may include contacting workplaces or friends and family
members in an effort to intimidate or embarrass. In some cases, behaviour
that would not rise to the level of harassment in a single case can become
harassment through repetition. Harassment INCLUDES but is not limited to:

[...]

*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.



Wugapodes argues that sharing someone's name and workplace without their
consent should *only* be unacceptable if it is judged by ArbCom to have
been done *primarily* to "intimidate, outrage or upset a person" and is
"beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global,
intercultural environment". Not performing this extra test, Wugapodes says,
would lead to "absurd results":

*'In the line you want us to take absurdly literally, we have the line
["]sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the
projects.["] Well, under your interpretation, looks like half my friends
and family are harassing me. Let me call over my partner, "Yes, hi honey,
remember when you told your friends that I'm a Wikipedia arbitrator? Well,
unfortunately, I did not give you explicit permission to do so and you have
therefore harassed me. I have reported you to the Foundation.'*

I agree with him inasmuch as the literal meaning of the passage he quotes
is patently absurd. (I have said exactly the same before.)

But does the community agree that it is okay for a Wikimedian to share a
fellow Wikimedian's legal name, workplace and so on, as long as it is not
done "primarily" to intimidate etc. and is in line with "what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment"?

Historically, outing rules on Wikipedia have been much stricter.

One of the reasons for this is that even if there is no *intent* to
intimidate or harm, outing can have *extremely* severe consequences for
Wikimedians, depending on (1) what they write about and (2) where they live
and work – recall the two Wikimedians currently serving long jail sentences
in Saudi Arabia[3].

Moreover, Wugapodes' interpretation, while internally consistent, does not
follow from the UCoC text as it stands. The preamble says what harassment "
INCLUDES" and the bulletpoints also begin with "Harassment INCLUDES ..."

If I have two sentences, "Fruit includes things that taste sweet" and
"Fruit includes apples", it does not logically follow that apples are only
fruit if they taste sweet. Am I the only person who sees a logical
non-sequitur here?

Andreas


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland=prev=1153350996
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report





On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:34 PM  wrote:

> Hello Andreas,
>
> By way of disclosure I am a researcher at the Yale Applied Cryptography
> Laboratory and I have been studying the tension between the right to
> privacy and the need for legal accountability when content is posted
> online.
>
> My working theory is that we need to avoid creating lawless zones on the
> internet.  When content is posted online, the poster has to be accountable
> in some way to avoid social harms like the harassment of individuals or
> groups.
>
> One way we create accountability on Wikipedia and 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Bobby, Shola and all,

You say, "We (Africans) were consulted".

According to Meta[1], the Working Group for these awards comprised four
English-speaking Wikimedians (at least two of whom are themselves
journalists) from Nigeria, Ghana, South Sudan and Kenya.

At the time of writing, the Meta page has been translated into German,
Italian and Korean only. That's an odd assortment of languages for a
pan-African award!

It doesn't create the impression that there was a signficant amount of
involvement by the large African communities speaking and writing in
French, Arabic, Portuguese, Swahili or Afrikaans, for example.

Another noteworthy aspect is that while Wikimedia staff are not eligible
for participation, African Wikimedia volunteers are. This could potentially
include members of the Working Group itself, as well as their friends and
colleagues from their local Wikimedia user groups.

The documentation says very little about how the winners will be
determined. All I found was this:

· *The Wikimedia Foundation (in collaboration with volunteer Wikimedia
editors), through its discretion, will use these nominations to help
identify journalists for this recognition.*

Could the team say a little more about how conflicts of interest will be
managed?

Also, I would second what The Cunctator said earlier: "It might help to
explicitly mention the awareness of these language issues in the public
presentation of this effort." Just saying that this is a first effort and
that other languages will be considered in future years would help a lot.

For example, you could commit to just having French next year, Arabic the
year after that, etc.

At the moment, the incongruity between the professed emphasis on
"diversity, equity and inclusion" and the restriction to English that
follows immediately after is very striking.

This said, I hope you get great entries and look forward to reading the
winning entries in due course.

Best,
Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_the_Knowledge_Journalism_Awards

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 3:38 AM Bobby Shabangu 
wrote:

> Thanks for your email and concerns about inclusion Andreas. We (Africans)
> were consulted.
>
> And thanks Shola for that response. The key word here is “Pilot”. Looking
> forward to the results and impact of this project in future.
>
> Best regards,
> Bobby Shabangu
>
> On Fri, 05 May 2023 at 18:45, Neurodivergent Netizen <
> idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know there are cultures in the world that regard English as a litmus
>> test with regards to whether or not you’re educated, and was wondering if
>> that added a layer of nuance to the conversation. However, this changed my
>> mind:
>>
>>
>> Q: My article is in French, Portuguese, Swahili, or any other language
>>> that is not English. Can I submit a translated version?
>>>
>> A: This year’s awards are focused on articles published in English. We
>> are *not accepting translated articles*.
>>
>>
>> While I share Cunctators enthusiasm about the Working Group, the decision
>> to not accept even a translated article has an exclusionary impact
>> regardless of intent.
>>
>> From,
>> Emily
>> She/her
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 2023, at 8:05 AM, The Cunctator  wrote:
>>
>> While I share the concerns expressed, I'm personally enthusiastic about
>> the thoughtfulness and initiative of the Working Group. It might help to
>> explicitly mention the awareness of these language issues in the public
>> presentation of this effort.
>>
>> On Fri, May 5, 2023, 10:45 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lodewijk,
>>>
>>> In your reply to Olushola you said:
>>>
>>> "I hope you can perhaps also clarify whether 'in English' means that the
>>> original article has to be available in English, or that some translation
>>> should be available in English."
>>>
>>> As Shola hasn't provided any clarification on this, note that the FAQ[1]
>>> for the award states:
>>>
>>> Q: My article is in French, Portuguese, Swahili, or any other language
>>> that is not English. Can I submit a translated version?
>>> A: This year’s awards are focused on articles published in English. We
>>> are *not accepting translated articles*.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/open-the-knowledge/journalism-awards/#a5-frequently-asked-questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023, effe iets anders 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Olushola,
>>> > than

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Lodewijk,

In your reply to Olushola you said:

"I hope you can perhaps also clarify whether 'in English' means that the
original article has to be available in English, or that some translation
should be available in English."

As Shola hasn't provided any clarification on this, note that the FAQ[1]
for the award states:

Q: My article is in French, Portuguese, Swahili, or any other language that
is not English. Can I submit a translated version?
A: This year’s awards are focused on articles published in English. We are *not
accepting translated articles*.

Best regards,
Andreas

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/open-the-knowledge/journalism-awards/#a5-frequently-asked-questions



On Thursday, May 4, 2023, effe iets anders  wrote:
> Hi Olushola,
> thanks for working on efforts like this. I think it's definitely our
African communities that should be the judge of what shape works best for
an award like this. Out of curiosity, as a way for us all to learn and
maybe for Africans among us who want to participate in this conversation
that you refer to, could you link to where this conversation/consultation
is happening?
> I hope you can perhaps also clarify whether 'in English' means that the
original article has to be available in English, or that some translation
should be available in English. I think the former would be much more
restrictive than the latter, especially if some translation resources
(including community resources) are available.
> Best,
> Lodewijk
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:48 PM Olushola Olaniyan <
olaniyanshol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> My name is Olushola (User: Olaniyan Olushola). I am from Africa and have
been a Wikimedia since 2014 and passionate about language. I co-lead the
Oral History documentation of Nigerian indigenous languages ( see more
about it here ). I am part and parcel of the working group for this
Journalism Award. Together with other community members and some foundation
staff, we have co-created the submission guidelines and award criteria,
including that articles should be English language articles published in a
major outlet.
>>
>> Everything regarding the rationale for this award is being done in
consultation with members of our African communities, aligned with our
goals to increase exposure for the work we love in the region and close
knowledge gaps.
>>
>> One thing to mention is that articles about Africa, especially written
by journalists with a local perspective, must be better represented in our
language Wikipedias, including English.
>>
>> With this being a brand-new initiative, it was the best time to learn.
>>
>> It is a pilot, and we all see this as an experiment to draw more
attention to journalists' important role as content creators on Wikipedia.
>>
>> You will agree that we need to celebrate existing journalism excellence
that helps fill knowledge gaps online.
>>
>> The working group conferred, and since this is a pilot, we decided
together that it was a good idea to consider the need to limit the scope to
collect data and insights easily. We understand the sentiment behind
language in Africa and beyond, and we always wanted to keep everything
simple. We know that no language is superior to the other, so this is a
pilot. From here, we will likely assess the impact we can have before
scaling.
>>
>> We wish to expand this initiative with more regional volunteers should
it succeed - and we hope it will.
>>
>> We already have more than a hundred entries!
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Shola
>>
>> ___
>> 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/UEFHWM4CB5VAQM2IV2UGM65V6FMFYJHQ/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/VFIO3D4JKHKTCLKTYNEMWIACO2QOIIR2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

Yesterday's WMF press release

announced an African journalism award:


*Africawide – The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates
Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, is today launching the inaugural
Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards. Coinciding with the 30th anniversary
of World Press Freedom Day, this year’s awards celebrate the contributions
of journalists in Africa who prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion in
their reporting.*

This sounds great, until we come to the following line:

*Articles must have been published online and in English between January 1,
2022 and June 23, 2023.*

How is this compatible with the idea that we "prioritize diversity, equity
and inclusion"? The piece starts with the word "Africawide" ... surely we
are aware that about half of Africa is French-speaking?

I can understand that you might want to incentivise journalism in European
rather than African languages – simply because such journalism would be
more likely to find a volunteer with the time to add the information to
Wikipedia, and because of a lack of staff with the language skills required
to cover dozens of African languages.

But French, Portuguese and Spanish should be within the WMF's capabilities,
all the more so as machine translation these days is good enough to tell
even a non-French speaker whether a French article covers an interesting
subject.

I hope that next year, journalists writing in other languages will not be
completely excluded from consideration for this award. Relying on English
will only strengthen some of the existing biases in coverage.

Andreas
___
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/557PDAE5VBPLYAIIEOBWG446AYHL4JS4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Lodewijk,

Thanks. You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph where you say,

"I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve."

That is exactly what I was hoping us to have a conversation about. (My
first mail in this thread was addressed to the Board members, who I am sure
are indeed well aware of the essay. You can find press coverage of it here
<https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-the-history-of-the-holocaust-in-poland.html>
.)

As far as the arbitration case is concerned, ArbCom took the very rare step
of self-initiating this case in response to the essay. I didn't start the
case, nor am I a party to it.

Best,
Andreas

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:03 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> interesting questions. I don't think your assumption "As you are no doubt
> aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author recently published..."
> is true. I was definitely not aware of it, and I doubt many others are
> either. I was able to piece together some of your claims, but not all
> (simply due to lack of time, I'm sure). Just offering this information so
> that you can provide the necessary context as needed. I was unable to dive
> deep enough to give this proper attention. One thing I did note was that
> you were the person who started the arbitration case. It might be
> beneficial for this discussion if someone else familiar with the matter,
> could summarize it. If only for the simple fact that they may have more
> appreciation of what is and isn't known by the wider community. (For
> example, I was unable to verify myself that the workplace and real name
> were indeed shared, and that this information could not be assumed to be
> public knowledge)
>
> Assuming all your stated facts to be correct, I would actually not be
> certain what the right approach would be either. Surely, it can not be the
> intent to encourage doxxing off-platform, but we can't attempt to block
> academic discussion on complex matters either. Wikipedia does not live in a
> vacuum. I would rephrase your question "are [Wikimedians] permitted to
> share contributors' private information such as their workplace address in
> these various venues, without obtaining explicit consent to do so? " to
> something like: "Should Wikimedians be sanctioned when they disclose
> private information without explicit consent in the source of academic (or
> political, societal) discourse outside of Wikimedia".
>
> I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
> as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
> implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
> could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:01 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
>>
>> The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
>> Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
>> any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
>> over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
>> is an example.
>>
>> Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
>>
>> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors'
>> private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
>> address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
>> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
>> outside the projects.*
>>
>> As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
>> recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
>> Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
>> legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
>> contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
>> of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
>> understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
>> workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.
>>
>> Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
>> about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
>> ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Ho

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Brock and all,

You mention academic standards. In academic contexts it is perfectly normal
to level personal critiques at opposing scholars. And naming the
institutions where scholars with opposing viewpoints teach is arguably
essential, as well as a matter of professional courtesy.

But the Wikimedia movement is composed of amateurs, not scholars. As such,
it has generally insisted that editors' real-world identities or
professional qualifications are irrelevant to any critique of their
participation.

It is true that the contributors whose workplaces the essay's authors chose
to divulge in their essay are themselves academics. But they are not
scholars in the discipline that this argument is about (historiography and
Holocaust studies). They might as well be car mechanics, shopkeepers or
dentists, as far as academic expertise in this subject area is concerned.
(I wouldn't be making the argument I am making here if all the people
concerned knew each other in an academic context, i.e. if they were all
historians having regular scholarly arguments across different publication
venues, *one of which* happened to be Wikipedia.)

The Universal Code of Conduct introduced a couple of years ago and endorsed
by the community for enforcement requires "explicit consent" from
Wikimedians before their personal data can be shared. This requirement,
which arguably makes the Code even more stringent than traditional English
Wikipedia policy, was not met.

Now, the essay in question here is currently being promoted internationally
at academic conferences as a model for other scholars to follow.[1] Its
methodology relied on interviewing editors contributing to a contentious
topic area that had been subject to multiple on-wiki arbitrations before.
It ended up endorsing one side of the conflict, and "naming and shaming"
editors on the other side.

The authors are correct that this model could be applied to other on-wiki
conflict areas. An Indian scholar writing about the India/Pakistan
conflict, for example, could review past on-wiki dispute resolution
proceedings, identify interested parties and banned editors whose views
they find sympathetic, and use opposition research gathered from their
interviewees to expose Pakistani editors – and vice versa. The same goes
for the China/Taiwan/Hong Kong topic area, the Israel/Palestine conflict,
pro-Russia/anti-Russia disputes, and so forth.

Do we really want to normalise editors' workplaces being disclosed in such
academic writing?

I am perfectly aware that ultimately there may be little that can be done
about unwanted workplace disclosures. Laws differ from country to country,
but many forms of doxing are not actually illegal. Indeed, some are morally
justifiable, or even a legitimate part of law enforcement. But as far as I
can see the doxing done in this essay was gratuitous. The essay would not
have lost any of its academic integrity and significance if it had
refrained from disclosing editors' legal names and workplaces.

In formulating the Universal Code of Conduct, surely the Board had an idea
in mind of protecting volunteer contributors from external harassment, as
far as possible. External harassment is different from on-wiki criticism of
someone's contributions or participating in on-wiki dispute resolution (an
avenue that is available to scholars just like it is available to anyone
else). Every editor should be open to having their contributions
criticised, but external harassment is a different matter.

As I see it, the Board of Trustees decided to make observing the Universal
Code of Conduct the "price of admission", as it were, for active
participation in the Wikimedia movement. There may always be scholars who
are unfamiliar with the Code, or decide to ignore it even though they know
that the code requires them to obtain Wikimedian's explicit consent before
sharing their personal information.

But the Wikimedia movement is not completely powerless here. We can
certainly say to academics, Don't divulge people's identities – especially
if, as in this case, they are already targets for harassment – unless you
have a very good reason to do so, and their real-life identity is of direct
relevance to the issue you are reporting on.

The Universal Code of Conduct is new. I am not saying that academics who
make a mis-step should have the book thrown at them. But ArbCom should not
overlook obvious violations either.

Ultimately, I think there are good chances that – once aware of the issue –
academics will by and large do without doxing contributors.

Regards,
Andreas

[1] In a couple of days, for example, at Lund University:
https://www.hist.lu.se/historia/kalendarium/evenemang/hogre-seminariet-jan-grabowski-och-shira-klein-wikipedias-intentional-distortion-history-holocaust/




On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:45 PM  wrote:

> In fact, just to expand on this, in order for it to be harrassment of
> defamation or what have you, it first has to NOT be appropriate academic
> 

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 8 – 26 April 2023
--

News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in
the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/News_and_notes

In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/In_the_media

Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Obituary

Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a
desysopping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Arbitration_report

Opinion: What Jimbo's question revealed about scamming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Opinion

Op-Ed: Wikipedia as an anchor of truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Op-Ed

Special report: *Signpost* statistics between years 2005 and 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Special_report

News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/News_from_the_WMF

Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Featured_content

>From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/From_the_archives

Humour: The law of hats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Humour

Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/FD5S7TBLJ6WAQVSJH7E2ELREV6LYHDF6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Correction:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


In my earlier email I said:

*"In this specific case, one of the two contributors once, over a decade
ago, posted a link to a Dramatica page containing their name and a previous
place of employment (different from their current place of employment as
shared in the essay)."*

This was incorrect. All the contributor did, well over ten years ago after
having been doxed, was to say (in frustration) that if people wanted more
personal info, they could find it on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

I am really sorry to have gotten that detail wrong, because it makes a
material difference, as far as the letter of policy is concerned. For even
back then, WP:OUTING expressly required the *posting of a link*.

A.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:00 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
>
> The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
> Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
> any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
> over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
> is an example.
>
> Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
>
> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
> outside the projects.*
>
> As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
> recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
> Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
> legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
> contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
> of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
> understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
> workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.
>
> Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
> about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
> ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust
> topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two
> Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing
> information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are
> already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware.
>
> Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to
> having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises
> them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly.
>
> Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of
> personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces –
> especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their
> editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these
> contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1,
> specifically:
>
> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
> outside the projects.*
>
> The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration
> Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of the
> essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, preferring
> to apply the most charitable interpretation of a local English Wikipedia
> policy instead of the UCoC definition.[1]
>
> Local policy on English Wikipedia says that sharing a contributor's
> personal information (on Wikipedia) is not harassment if said contributor
> has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information,
> on Wikipedia at some time in the past.[2] In this specific case, one of the
> two contributors once, over a decade ago, posted a link to a Dramatica page
> containing their name and a previous place of employment (different from
> their current place of employment as shared in the essay). I understand
> they tried later on to have that edit oversighed but were refused. The
> other contributor is open about their legal name and workplace on
> Wikipedia.
>
> As we can see, the English Wikipedia's local policy is not aligned with
> the UCoC. The UCoC – which we are told defines a minimum standard that
> takes precedence over any and all local policies and must

[Wikimedia-l] Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
is an example.

Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:

*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.*

As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.

Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust
topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two
Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing
information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are
already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware.

Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to
having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises
them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly.

Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of
personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces –
especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their
editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these
contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1,
specifically:

*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.*

The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration
Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of the
essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, preferring
to apply the most charitable interpretation of a local English Wikipedia
policy instead of the UCoC definition.[1]

Local policy on English Wikipedia says that sharing a contributor's
personal information (on Wikipedia) is not harassment if said contributor
has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information,
on Wikipedia at some time in the past.[2] In this specific case, one of the
two contributors once, over a decade ago, posted a link to a Dramatica page
containing their name and a previous place of employment (different from
their current place of employment as shared in the essay). I understand
they tried later on to have that edit oversighed but were refused. The
other contributor is open about their legal name and workplace on
Wikipedia.

As we can see, the English Wikipedia's local policy is not aligned with the
UCoC. The UCoC – which we are told defines a minimum standard that takes
precedence over any and all local policies and must not be ignored or
circumvented – demands that Wikimedians wanting to share other
contributors' personal information obtain "explicit consent" from the
contributors concerned. "Explicit consent" is generally considered to be a
much higher standard than implied consent.[3] "Explicit consent" is telling
an author, "Yes, it is fine for you to mention my name and workplace in
your essay."

And unlike local policy, the UCoC says that it covers conduct outside of
Wikimedia spaces as well. It says it applies to –

*all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as
well as the following instances:*

*Private, public and semi-public interactions*
*Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community
members*
*Issues of technical development*
*Aspects of content contribution*
*Cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners*

On the face of it, "public interactions" and "expressions of disagreement"
would seem to include writings a Wikimedian publishes about another
contributor in a journal, a newspaper, a blog, etc., or statements they
make about them in press interviews.

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 7 – 3 April 2023
--

>From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/From_the_editor

News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with
AI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/News_and_notes

In the media: Twiddling Wikipedia during an online contest, and other news
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/In_the_media

Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case
is ongoing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/Arbitration_report

Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/Featured_content

Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette
of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/Recent_research

>From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/From_the_archives

Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-03/Disinformation_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/MWH4IB5K7REBSQ2GWFKSVTWP2RFPOIXX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 6 – 20 March 2023
--

News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government
after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-20/News_and_notes

Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-20/Eyewitness

In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and
people peeved at perceived preferences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-20/In_the_media

Featured content: Way too many featured articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-20/Featured_content

Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-20/Interview

Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-20/Traffic_report


Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/CXQ4HRV4PEGQ5GYQRFCOWVTBE4RFNDMX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 5 – 9 March 2023
--

News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes


Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing
ChatGPT's accuracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/Technology_report


In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less
woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/In_the_media


Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section
needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/Featured_content


Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in
Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent_research


>From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/From_the_archives



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/Z4WQ6R3Q27ZFM2KUJ3WCFL3DXLU3TGJA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Anne,

It's now transpired that the WMF actually received IRS approval for the new
non-profit organisation intended to take over the Endowment over eight
months ago, in June 2022.[1] The October 2022 announcement that approval
had been received was made four months after the fact.

Two years ago, in April 2021, we were told that the Foundation would "move
the endowment in its entirety to this new entity once the new charity
receives its IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter".[2] Yet even with the
letter received last summer we still seem to be no nearer to having our
$100 million Endowment in the hands of a transparent organisation that
publishes audited statements of the Endowment's assets, revenue and
expenditure, along with a Form 990. We still don't have a date for when the
money will be transferred from Tides. We're merely told it will still take
"months".

So it looks like we will have had another full year of millions of dollars
of donations bypassing the Wikimedia Foundation's books.

None of this would be an issue if the Foundation had released audited
financial statements for the Endowment during the past seven years. But all
we've ever had is promises of transparency in the future, and requests for
more money now.

Remember, Anne, all donations to the Endowment are treated as a
"pass-through", so "they are not reflected on the Wikimedia Foundation's
financials as revenue or net assets".[2] That means they're essentially
invisible to us, because the Tides Foundation doesn't publish separate
financial statements for the Wikimedia Endowment showing us how much money
has come in and how much has gone out.

Moreover, all planned gifts willed to the Wikimedia Foundation have also
been going to the Endowment for some time now, wherever the terms of the
will allow.[3] I am not sure whether that means that these planned gifts
are now also processed as "pass-throughs". I suspect they are. If so, that
means that these amounts flowing into the Endowment have also become
invisible.

Am I mistaken on any of the above? If not, are you really satisfied with
that degree of transparency over a fund reportedly holding more than 100
million dollars of donations? Would you accept such conduct from any
Wikimedia chapter?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
[3]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Remit_of_Planned_Gifts_to_the_Wikimedia_Endowment



On Thursday, March 2, 2023, Risker  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:26,  wrote:
>>
>> Why didn't WMF do the groundwork for transferring the endowment funds
from Tides to a WMF 501(c)3 given that there were over SIX long years to
make such plans?
>>
>> Why does WMF STILL not know how to effect this transfer or when it will
be completed, despite the passage of six months?
>
> The timeline of when the IRS would grant 501(c)3 status was completely
out of the control of the WMF; they could make the application in a timely
way, but they could not be certain at what point this status would be
granted.  I think we all recognize this; the IRS is a governmental
organization whose decision-making process and timeline are completely
outside of the control of the WMF, Wikipedia, or any other third party.
While the WMF could reasonably expect a positive decision, it had no way of
being certain when that decision would come.
> I have little doubt that many of the same people complaining of how long
it is taking to move things around *now* would also complain if staff had
been hired for an entity that didn't yet exist, based on the prospect that
it would eventually exist. Since the 501(c)3 didn't yet exist, all of its
staffing costs would have come out of the WMF budget at the same time that
other areas were being cut back in relation to lower-than-expected
fundraising.  I've got a lot more liberal a view of WMF spending than many
others in this thread, and even I think that would have been a really poor
use of limited resources.
>
> It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
___
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/IL3765TO7GJWAFJO6RLHHHLI5Z5H7BPQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 4 – 20 February 2023
--

News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back
in Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/News_and_notes


In the media: Arbitrators open case request after article alleges Wikipedia
"intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/In_the_media


Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Disinformation_report


Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Essay


Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Tips_and_tricks


Featured content: Eden, lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Featured_content


Gallery: Love is in the air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Gallery


Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely,
the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Traffic_report


>From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main
Page!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/From_the_archives


Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Cobwebs


Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/Humour



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/EI4J7ISYR24R7Q7ZGBKBVXERGKMEDNMD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] New Signpost issue 4 February 2023

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 3 – 4 February 2023
--

>From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a
decent article search function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/From_the_editor


News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides,
and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/News_and_notes


Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of
an encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Section_230


Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Disinformation_report


Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under
potential European legislation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Special_report


In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and
legislative debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/In_the_media


Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head
of national Wikimedia chapter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Op-Ed


Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art
coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Opinion


Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Recent_research


WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/WikiProject_report


Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Tips_and_tricks


Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Featured_content


Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Traffic_report



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/PUJZ6JHR5R3IEWHW3BU3KF5Q2O5GBJY5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia UK Strategic Report for 21/22

[Andreas Kolbe]

Wow, what a gorgeously designed report!

Beautiful to look at. Love it.

Andreas


On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:03 AM Lucy Crompton-Reid <
lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Dear all
>
>
> Wikimedia UK has just published our Strategic Report for the financial
> year 2021/22. Excitingly, this is our first fully digital format, which
> we hope brings to life the breadth of Wikimedia UK’s activities and impact.
>
>
> You can find the report directly here
>  or on our website
>  under Strategic Report.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Lucy
>
>
> --
> Lucy Crompton-Reid (she/her)
> Chief Executive
> ___
> 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/D3ETOIQRVDYKA6RCUXL4ITLGOCNDCCV6/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/DKF2OEGGI3HH64JRJMSJ2E5K6DMMZGMF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

I've been asked to explain what the issue with the Endowment is. Here is a
recap:

Over the past seven years, WMF staff have collected donations from the
public to build an Endowment that stood at $113.4 million a year ago (the
most recent update available).

The important thing that I and, I suspect, most of us didn't realise for
many years is this:[1]

1. The money held in the Endowment is not included in the net assets of the
Wikimedia Foundation, as those funds are held by the Tides Foundation.

2. Donations to the Endowment that are received by the Wikimedia Foundation
as a pass-through are redirected and sent to the Tides Foundation.
Therefore, they are not reflected on the Wikimedia Foundation's financials
as revenue or net assets.

3. When the Wikimedia Foundation makes special grants to the Endowment
Fund, those are reflected as "Awards and Grants" expenses on the Wikimedia
Foundation's Annual Independent Auditors' Report.

This means that under the past and present arrangement, all the auditors at
KPMG have ever included in their annual audit reports were the annual $5
million+ grants sent to Tides, recorded as an expense. Any money people
donated to the WMF specifically for the Endowment bypassed the audited
financial statements.

In addition, for the past two years, all the money people have willed to
the Wikimedia Foundation has been redirected to the Wikimedia Endowment
instead (except in cases where the terms of the will prevent that), adding
to these tens of millions of dollars of pass-through amounts that bypass
the Foundation's audited financial statements.[2]

As a result, there is a significant lack of of transparency and public
oversight in the past and present arrangement with Tides. Over $100 million
in donations and planned gifts collected from the public is too significant
an amount to say, "It's alright. We don't need to see any paperwork. We
know you are good people."

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
[2]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Remit_of_Planned_Gifts_to_the_Wikimedia_Endowment?tableofcontents=0

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:08 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Caitlin,
>
> Thank you for the clarification. Is there any chance we might see audited
> financial statements covering the Endowment's past seven years, in a format
> comparable to the annually published, audited financial statements
> detailing the revenue and expenses of the Foundation,[1] and delivering the
> same level of transparency?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:19 PM Caitlin Virtue 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
>> around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
>>
>> The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
>> of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
>> transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
>> that is already registered
>> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/>
>> and the transition process will soon be underway.
>>
>> Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:
>>
>> Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.
>>
>> Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.
>>
>> Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.
>>
>> You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides?>
>> .
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Caitlin Virtue
>>
>> Senior Director of Development
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
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/WMVL7GQ4KZPRCU73LSNWS7RDSOE32G7C/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Caitlin,

Thank you for the clarification. Is there any chance we might see audited
financial statements covering the Endowment's past seven years, in a format
comparable to the annually published, audited financial statements
detailing the revenue and expenses of the Foundation,[1] and delivering the
same level of transparency?

If not, why not?

Best,
Andreas

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:19 PM Caitlin Virtue 
wrote:

> Hi Christophe,
>
> This thread has circled around the main question of will any decisions
> around the endowment be transparent. The answer is yes.
>
> The question of transparency has also become conflated with the mechanism
> of how the money is held. The answer here is that we are working to
> transition endowment funds out of Tides to the separate 501(c)(3) entity
> that is already registered
> 
> and the transition process will soon be underway.
>
> Finally, to answer some questions that came up directly:
>
> Is the Endowment an independent 501(c)(3) entity? Yes.
>
> Is the money currently managed by Tides? Yes.
>
> Will the money transition out of Tides to the new 501(c)(3)? Yes.
>
> You can also find a similar reply that we gave earlier, on meta
> 
> .
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Caitlin Virtue
>
> Senior Director of Development
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> ___
> 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/3AMQSLJN2B76KSDVL2VBDD33E4MQE7PG/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/YD4DFL5H5KK363PPIBNHABAJWMUUJR42/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

>> systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the
>> direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement
>> made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect
>> representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification
>> was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from
>> the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies
>> in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation
>> and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the
>> movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best
>> regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)"
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia
>> Signpost)
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
>> > Regards,
>> > Julia
>> >
>> > [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
>> ?
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Sam,
>> >>
>> >> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been
>> moved, or it has not been moved.
>> >>
>> >> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation
>> didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?"
>> >>
>> >> Here is the complete question again:
>> >>
>> >> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides
>> Foundation. According to SignPost (
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion)
>> on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us
>> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches
>> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a
>> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33
>> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia
>> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into
>> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report
>> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information
>> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?
>> >>
>> >> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of
>> affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org
>> ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I
>> feel, have looked something like this:
>> >>
>> >> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity
>> when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that
>> move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a
>> new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022.
>> We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment
>> and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).
>> >>
>> >> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money
>> had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the
>> Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to
>> a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.
>> >>
>> >> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the
>> Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently
>> managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".
>> >>
>> >> There are really two issues here:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this
>> in the public domain.
>> >> 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating?
>> >>
>> >> As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai:
>> >>
>> >> A: The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of
>> transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for
>> public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on
>> developments related to the endowment by publishin

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Sam,

Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved,
or it has not been moved.

The Rai journalists specifically asked *"Why the Wikimedia Foundation
didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" *

Here is the complete question again:

Q: *The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides
Foundation. According to SignPost
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
)
on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us
the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches
$33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a
new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33
million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia
Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into
the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report
about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information
and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? *

If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs
– i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready,
so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel,
have looked something like this:

A: *We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when
it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move
.
We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new
organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We
are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and
expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).*

Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had
already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the
Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to
a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.

This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment
page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by
the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".

There are really two issues here:

1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about this in
the public domain.
2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating?

As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai:

A: *The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of
transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for
public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on
developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information
such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on
the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy
updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as
on the Wikimedia Foundation website.  *

I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on the
Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where things
stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info to the
Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting minutes.[1]

And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited financial
statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in all the
seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the "principles of
transparency common to our movement" (a point that, incidentally, was also
made in the Italian programme).

I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several weeks ago
on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date.

As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 million
that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates in the
July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the Form 990
disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years
(their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), hoping to find
US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that 2020/2021 APG amount
over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I have not been
successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 million total.

Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else reading in
who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms as well, to
see whether you come to a different result? The forms are linked in the
discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF board
experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that happily
resolves the apparent discrepancy.

[Wikimedia-l] The Endowment, again

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia
Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national
broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their
website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the
programme makers asked.[2]

One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote:

*Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100
million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate
501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to
the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think
there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is
created through worldwide donations? *

*A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established
as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022
following a 2021 board resolution. *

This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October
2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a
501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the
process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies
and systems".[3]

Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new
501(c)(3)?

At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its readers
that the funds are held and administered by the Tides Foundation.[4]

Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and
the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November
substantially misleading?

Andreas

[1]
https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42bb-bef0-0063a0e1b1fb.html
[2]
http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2024%20NOVEMBRE%202022_EN.pdf
and
http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2010%20GENNAIO%202023_ITA.pdf

[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_from_the_WMF
[4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007
[5]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-endowment-board/
refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected
timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."
___
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/7XYR2NTQQGCP5W5YBEA75JIXT6GOZRPF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the
Wikipedia Twitter account?

A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese,
Basque, Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that
are doing fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and
curate the main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to
write (or suggest) the occasional tweet?

Andreas

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi/Bona nit,
>
> This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have
> been mentioning in this list during the past days:
>
>
> https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ
>
> Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin
> deployed since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on
> their huge contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then
> nor today…). We need to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read
> something like "The new features, which start rolling out on English
> Wikipedia today, were built in collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers
> worldwide."
>
> If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to
> the English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as
> "English Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?
>
> Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and
> justified arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to
> trace a joint planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the
> Comms department. Disappointing, I am sad to say.
>
> Kind regards/Salutacions
>
> Xavier Dengra
>
> El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> va escriure:
>
> Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
> You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only
> from one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for
> a long time, because patterns are here the most important thing.
> Neverthless, there is only one way to know if the point me and some other
> users in this thread are rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should
> try something: tweeting 6-7 times a day, with varied topics, "on this day"
> like tweets, varying timezones and even curiosities about how Wikipedia
> works (https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2
> million impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the
> results (engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite
> obvious that there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if
> engagement is the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible,
> the current strategy could be validated.
>
> Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task,
> proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they
> want help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the
> same pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own
> eyes) and trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications
> team to aknowledge this and give a try.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Gnangarra 
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> Kaya Galder
>
> The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of
> those audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have
> multiple channels.  What I am saying is that in different communities that
> doesnt and will never hold true.  Using statistics to compare the two is
> the issue and then complaining about different audience responses to the
> same event being caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the
> channel operators, it's the underlying expectation that all audiences are
> the same and react exactly the same way every time even as the audience is
> increasing by many orders of magnitude.
>
> Boodarwun
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the
> English audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day (
> https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org=all-access=2022-12-29=),
> and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew
> Tate. Also, the account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called Wikipedia, so
> it should take into account, even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia
> (as pointed by @Xavier Dengra) a global audience. Because, again, the goal
> is *"By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free
> Knowledge on the Internet."*. Not only for US centered people, but by a
> global audience. Even with 

[Wikimedia-l] A new Signpost issue is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

Our New Year's resolution at The Signpost has been to go back to a
fortnightly publication schedule. Accordingly, somewhat earlier than
expected, here is the next Signpost issue!

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 2 – 16 January 2023
--

>From the team: We heard zoomers liked fortnights: the biweekly Signpost
rides again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/From_the_team


Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long
sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report


News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote,
WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/News_and_notes


In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the
crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/In_the_media


Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Technology_report


In focus: Busting into Grand Central
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/In_focus


Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Serendipity


Gallery: What is our responsibility when it comes to images?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Gallery


Humour: New geologically speedy deletion criteria introduced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Humour


Opinion: Good old days, in which fifth-symbol-lacking lipograms roam'd our
librarious litany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Opinion


Featured content: Flip your lid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Featured_content


Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Traffic_report


>From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/From_the_archives



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/VH6UZPBE46IG6ZUXNLW6ZA5IERNTKEXJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi all,

It is a bit unfortunate that there is a palpable sense of resentment here
on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation towards DAWN and SMEX.

As far as Osama's and Ziyad's best interests are concerned, I would suggest
DAWN and SMEX's judgment should not be dismissed lightly. They have local
expertise and indeed say they have conducted "interviews with sources close
to Wikpedia and the imprisoned administrators".[1] I understand this to
mean that they have spoken to Osama and Ziyad, or people close to them.

Sarah Leah Whitson, the Executive Director of DAWN, spent over 15 years in
charge of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division.[2]
It's hard to think of someone more qualified to comment or advise on this
matter.

Wouldn't it be better to work together on doing whatever can be done for
Osama and Ziyad?

32 years in jail is a long, long time.

Also, the WMF posted a long statement on the Arabic Wikipedia that is worth
reading.[3] I append a Google translation below for those interested.

Andreas

[1]
https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
[2] https://dawnmena.org/about/who-we-are-2/sarah-leah-whitson/ and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Leah_Whitson
[3]
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:الميدان/منوعات#تحديث_من_مؤسسة_ويكيميديا

Update from the Wikimedia Foundation

Hello all

We know the past few weeks have been difficult for the community. We also
realize that this situation remains confusing and worrying in light of the
media reports that have emerged. As an organization, we regret the distress
and concern this situation has caused the community. While we know we can't
answer all of your questions, we want to make sure you understand our
processes and the rationale behind them. We also want to ensure that our
actions are in the best interests of society to the best of our ability and
with the tools available to us. As mentioned, the measures were not linked
in any way to the recent media reports that are currently circulating, nor
in any way to the arrests. The Foundation has learned of the arrest of
Osama and Ziyad, and is actively following up on their conditions.

As we know that not everyone will have read all of the data, we would like
to reiterate that the process of reaching the decision to take action in
December 2022 was not easy or rushed. The investigation into violations of
the Terms of Use took a long time starting with the Persian Wikipedia and
moving on as new information emerged, and the final decision was guided by
multiple levels of review by several employees across different functions.
After consideration, it was unanimously agreed that the action is necessary
to keep the community and platforms safe. Proper implementation of this
measure was equally important in keeping the community and platforms safe,
and thus adhering to established policies and procedures.

We realize that media reports and recent actions in December 2022 make many
of you skeptical and perhaps even apprehensive about participating in the
projects. We want you to know that the projects are owned by all of us, and
most of all, that you are the creators and curators of the content. The
Foundation rarely gets involved in issues of content or administration on
the Site, in exceptionally problematic circumstances. No one should fear
that the Foundation will take action on unintentional mistakes made while
participating as bona fide editors.

As many of you already know, the Foundation fully supports community
autonomy and the principle of subsidiarity as part of our commitment to
respecting and promoting community autonomy. Not only do we feel this is
the right approach to our shared values, but it is the only approach that
can make these amazing projects work. To ensure we maintain this
commitment, we do not deal with general community or community member
disputes that might otherwise be addressed through existing community
actions, nor act as a means of appealing community policies and decisions.
If such situations arise, we look forward to working to help the community
members who need help, but most of the time, this assistance will consist
of guiding the community members to find the right community avenue that
will solve their problem.

On some occasions, the Foundation considers cases of abuse. This only
occurs when it has been brought to our attention that the local community
lacks the necessary processes to effectively address the situation, or when
the organization has a legal obligation as a platform provider to act in
the interests of the safety of users and the platform. When we get
involved, we are limited in the course of action we can take. Our
procedures are guided by the Office's business policies, which allow us to
issue global bans, event bans, issue warnings, interaction bans, and
advanced permission removal. While this responsibility rests with us, we do
not take our 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has
uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid
(User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg

Andreas



On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that
> the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the
> community into Arabic and posted a further update
> 
> there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information
> spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress
> within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
>
> Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these
> two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were
> administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have
> no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi
> Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine
> you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation,
> and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
>
> While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests
> of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers
> always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action
> or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer
> whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message,
> additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation
> and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of
> their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might
> create.
>
> Best regards,
> WMF Office/Trust and Safety
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <
> c...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about
>> the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6
>> .
>> More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from
>> SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many
>> material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
>> - for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
>> based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not
>> know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who
>> may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16
>> editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the
>> Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement
>> with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release
>> can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country
>> named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on
>> social media.
>>
>> As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss
>> Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists
>> accounts banned as a result of its investigations
>> .
>> It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential
>> protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead
>> disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have
>> disclosed the rationale.
>>
>> The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were
>> initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns
>> they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now,
>> but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only
>> contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure
>> agreement
>> 
>> to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further
>> evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of
>> those evaluations.
>>
>> Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it
>> thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not
>> things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to
>> supporting the knowledge-sharing 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

Has there been any comment at all from the Wikimedia Foundation about the
two former Saudi Wikipedia admins who were sentenced to 32 and 8 years in
prison respectively?[1] (I say "former" admins because both were desysoped
for lack of admin activity years before their 2020 arrests.[2][3] They
remained active as editors though.)

These are horrifying sentences. (Note that the 32-year sentence was only
imposed in August of last year in an appeal process.)

Other than a very tangential mention by Jimmy Wales that really did not do
the subject justice[4] I have not seen any comment from the WMF on these
prison terms.

This is in marked contrast to the case of Bassel Khartabil a few years ago
– the WMF campaigned for his release.[5] Will there be any WMF
communications on OsamaK's and Ziad's heart-breaking plight forthcoming? I
understand one of the two had recently married. :(

It is also worth noting that two of the Arabic Wikipedia admins banned by
the WMF a month ago had bureaucrat and checkuser rights.[6][7] In that
sense, they were "high-ranking" – quite apart from the fact that if a
Wikipedia only has 26 administrators in total, every one of those 26 is
"high-ranking" from the point of view of the average person in the street.

The most glaring gap in WMF communications on this matter to date is that
there is a confident statement from the WMF that "users with close
connections with external parties were editing the platform in a
coordinated fashion to advance the aim of those parties" but no information
whatsoever on who these confidently identified "external parties" are –
there is only a now very prominently disseminated statement that the
Wikimedia Foundation "has denied claims the Saudi government infiltrated
its team in the Middle East".[8]

Whatever merits this approach may have, it will leave many people niggled
by unanswered questions. The Arabic Wikipedia community, meanwhile, speaks
of the event as a "disaster" and formed a committee last month to obtain
more information from the WMF. Are these talks ongoing?

Anyone with further information on any aspect of this affair please check
in with the Signpost news team in the Signpost Newsroom in the next few
days.[9]

Best,
Andreas

[1]
https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
[2] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/OsamaK
[3] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/Ziad
[4] https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1611301592027856897
[5] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/
[6] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/صالح
[7] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/جار%20الله
[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64195644
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 11:12 AM Nanour Garabedian <
garabedian.nanour.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I hope that this statement and clarifications will be translated to Arabic
> by the Foundation and published  on the Foundation's social media pages.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 8:58 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to see the lack of transparency attributed to the fact
>> that Wikimedia editing against ToS isn't akin to a crime. That juxtaposes
>> in a strange way with the news stories claiming that what drove Wikimedia's
>> action may be two members of the Wikimedia community who have been
>> sentenced to very long prison sentences for their contributions to
>> Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> For those who hadn't seen the press stories, see here for the article in
>> Ars Technica:
>> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/
>>
>> I agree with the criticism in the Ars article of Wikimedia's response -
>> the objection to use of the phrase "high ranking" to describe admins, and
>> the claim that Wikimedia can't possibly know where any of these people
>> live. I don't see the value of including these in Wikimedia's response.
>> These are the types of distinctions that have some meaning inside our
>> little bubble, but very little outside.
>>
>> Lastly, I find the link in WMF's statement to the Board's BLP resolution
>> inapposite. As all editors will recognize, the resolution and its related
>> policies are entirely focused on project content and protecting the
>> subjects of that content from the messy process of editing.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:27 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <
>> c...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports
>>> about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6
>>> .
>>> More are certain to follow. These media reports are 

[Wikimedia-l] New Year's edition of The Signpost

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all, 2023 has arrived, and so has a new Signpost issue. Happy New Year!

The Signpost – Volume 19, Issue 1 – 1 January 2023
--

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic
Wikipedia admins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/News_and_notes


In the media: Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for
divorces, and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media


Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Interview


Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at
substantial risk of failure"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Technology_report


Essay: Mobile editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Essay


Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Arbitration_report


Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Recent_research


Serendipity: Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and
critical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Serendipity


Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Featured_content


Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Traffic_report


CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/CommonsComix


>From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/From_the_archives



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost
___
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/RGFIS5KIGE6XVHQROYOVFNC7J7ZC5KWF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation Trust & Safety action in the MENA Region

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear T team,

You speak of conflict-of-interest editing on behalf of "external parties".

Were these commercial or political/ideological entities?

Andreas

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 9:04 PM Clover Moss 
wrote:

> That's actually the first thing I did when I saw the email, as I wasn't
> previously familar with the term.
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, 3:22 PM Neurodivergent Netizen <
> idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course Wikipedia has an article on it. :-) It refers to “the Middle
>> East and North Africa.”
>> From,
>> I dream of horses
>> She/her
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2022, at 12:01 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA?wprov=sfla1
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, 2:59 PM Neurodivergent Netizen <
>> idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you tell us what MENA stands for?
>>>
>>> From,
>>> I dream of horses
>>> She/her
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2022, at 8:28 AM, Wikimedia Trust and Safety 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> On December 6th 2022, the Foundation undertook 16 global bans to users
>>> who were engaging in conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia projects in
>>> the MENA region. While we are  unable to discuss Foundation office actions
>>> in detail due to legal limitations and for the safety of our communities,
>>> we would like to speak a little more to this situation as it involves the
>>> safety and security of all of us.
>>>
>>> As Wikimedia projects have risen in prominence across the world, it has
>>> attracted increasing attention of those who would like to control the
>>> information published on it, for political or other reasons. Community
>>> members have addressed concerns of this sort for many years, but sometimes
>>> volunteers who intervene in such cases may themselves face retaliation for
>>> their actions. The Foundation does its best to support volunteers in such
>>> cases, in order to preserve their safety.
>>>
>>> In January of 2022, the Foundation began an investigation into alleged
>>> conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia projects in the MENA region. In
>>> that investigation, we were able to confirm that a number of users with
>>> close connections with external parties were editing the platform in a
>>> coordinated fashion to advance the aim of those parties. These connections
>>> are a source of serious concern for the safety of our users that go beyond
>>> the capacity of the local language project communities targeted to
>>> address.  Due to the gravity of this situation, and in order to keep our
>>> users and the projects safe, the Foundation issued these 16 global bans.
>>>
>>> Such actions can be distressing to those who know individuals involved
>>> and to those who don’t. They can cause volunteers to mistrust each other
>>> and to mistrust the Foundation and to be unsure if they can safely
>>> contribute. We are unable to share more details about this situation due to
>>> the reasons mentioned above, but we want to assure you that the Foundation
>>> will continue to explore various ways to keep everyone safe and free to
>>> contribute to the projects. We want to thank those community members across
>>> the globe who address such situations every day and encourage all of you to
>>> consider how to be safe in your volunteer activities. We recognize that as
>>> we move forward, we will need to work with our communities to find a global
>>> process to navigate safety challenges that allow such situations to be
>>> dealt with as transparently as possible while also prioritising avoiding
>>> risk to the safety of our users.
>>>
>>> For anyone who feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects we encourage you to
>>> use the local community processes or to contact us for assistance. The
>>> Foundation and the community will work together, or in parallel, to enhance
>>> the safety of all users whenever necessary with whatever means we can.
>>>
>>> To contact the Trust & Safety team please email  c...@wikimedia.or
>>> g.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> WMF Office/Trust and Safety
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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/SOYG4CIA6H7WMAMWGRZWT3HJXPFEFVCJ/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] The new Signpost issue is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 11 – 28 November 2022
--

News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking
banners"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/News_and_notes


In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/In_the_media


Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner
ad RfC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Interview


Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Opinion


Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Disinformation_report


Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Op-Ed


Book review: *Writing the Revolution*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Book_review


Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Technology_report


Essay: The Six Million FP Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Essay


Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Tips_and_tricks


Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of
clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk
Observatory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Recent_research


Featured content: A great month for featured articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Featured_content


Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Obituary


Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Concept


Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative
determinism, and sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Traffic_report


>From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/From_the_archives


CommonsComix: Joker's trick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/CommonsComix



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
___
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/WPBBRKWN2X24E3LKIWF4C47SXKKBG64V/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published

[Andreas Kolbe]

Ad,

According to the WMF's FAQ:[1]

"During this audit period, some of the Foundation's cash was invested in
mortgage backed securities, U.S. Treasury securities, corporate bonds, and
stocks (Note 3)."[1]

So it appears your information is outdated.

See also page 11 of the financial statements (page 13 in the pdf).[2] This
shows a table titled "Fair Value of Investments" which is over my head, but
which you and others may be able to make sense of.

Among "long-term investments", this does include a figure of about $25
million for "Stocks."

So, what does this mean?

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2021-2022_-_frequently_asked_questions
[2]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf=13

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:08 PM Ad Huikeshoven 
wrote:

> The WMF does not invest in stocks, only in bonds.
>
> Op wo 9 nov. 2022 21:51 schreef Andreas Kolbe :
>
>> Dear Steven,
>>
>> Thank you for your explanation. I had naively assumed the investment
>> income in the "Support and revenue" section of the financial statements was
>> only for income *from* investments (i.e. dividend payments etc.),
>> without tracking changes in the value *of* investments as well. So what
>> you say makes sense.
>>
>> There is still something odd though. The US stock market dropped in
>> 2019–2020 as well, as a result of Covid. The Dow Jones Index went from
>> about 26,600 at the end of June 2019 to about 25,000 by the end of June
>> 2020, having fallen below 20,000 in the spring. But even so, the WMF had a
>> positive investment income of $5.5 million that year.[1]
>>
>> The following year, 2020–2021, the stock market *rose* very
>> substantially, with the DJI going from the said 25,000 to 34,500 by the end
>> of June 2021 – an increase of almost 10,000 points. Yet WMF investment
>> income was $1 million *less* than the year prior: just $4.4 million.[1]
>>
>> In the 2021–2022 year, as you say, the stock market went down again, the
>> DJI dropping from the said 34,500 to 31,100 at the end of June 2022. So
>> that drop is indeed twice as large as the drop in 2019–2020, but to go from
>> a $5.5 million *gain* in a year where the DJI dropped by 1,600 points to
>> a $12 million *loss* in a year where the DJI dropped by 3,400 points
>> struck me as odd.
>>
>> And I still don't quite understand why the Q3 tuning session forecast a
>> $26 million surplus,[2] while the actual surplus turned out to be just $8
>> million. I guess the fact that most of the drop in the markets occurred
>> from April onwards could explain part of it.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf=5
>> [2]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:36 PM Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:37 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear WMF Finance staff,
>>>>
>>>> I inquired over a week ago on Meta-Wiki why the WMF is reporting a
>>>> negative investment income (–$12 million). There has been no answer to
>>>> date.[1]
>>>>
>>>> I am a layperson, but how can an investment income be negative? Would
>>>> you mind sharing what this is about?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You probably didn't get a prompt answer because "how can investment
>>> income be negative" is something you could have Googled before asking the
>>> finance team.
>>>
>>> Investments can lose value.* The US stock market has lost a tremendous
>>> amount of value over the last year, so it would not be surprising that most
>>> investments would have a negative return recently.
>>>
>>> * https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negative-return.asp
>>> https://www.finra.org/investors/investing/investing-basics/risk
>>>
>>> I was also surprised to find that the reported increase in net assets
>>>> for the 2021–2022 financial year was "only" $8.2 million. The third-quarter
>>>> F tuning session published in May (based on data as of March 31) forecast
>>>> a far higher surplus, with an increase in net assets of $25.9 million.[2]
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind sharing what happened in the fourth quarter to reduce
>>>> the surplus by so much?
>>>>
>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Steven,

Thank you for your explanation. I had naively assumed the investment income
in the "Support and revenue" section of the financial statements was only
for income *from* investments (i.e. dividend payments etc.), without
tracking changes in the value *of* investments as well. So what you say
makes sense.

There is still something odd though. The US stock market dropped in
2019–2020 as well, as a result of Covid. The Dow Jones Index went from
about 26,600 at the end of June 2019 to about 25,000 by the end of June
2020, having fallen below 20,000 in the spring. But even so, the WMF had a
positive investment income of $5.5 million that year.[1]

The following year, 2020–2021, the stock market *rose* very substantially,
with the DJI going from the said 25,000 to 34,500 by the end of June 2021 –
an increase of almost 10,000 points. Yet WMF investment income was $1
million *less* than the year prior: just $4.4 million.[1]

In the 2021–2022 year, as you say, the stock market went down again, the
DJI dropping from the said 34,500 to 31,100 at the end of June 2022. So
that drop is indeed twice as large as the drop in 2019–2020, but to go from
a $5.5 million *gain* in a year where the DJI dropped by 1,600 points to a
$12 million *loss* in a year where the DJI dropped by 3,400 points struck
me as odd.

And I still don't quite understand why the Q3 tuning session forecast a $26
million surplus,[2] while the actual surplus turned out to be just $8
million. I guess the fact that most of the drop in the markets occurred
from April onwards could explain part of it.

Andreas

[1]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf=5
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:36 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:37 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear WMF Finance staff,
>>
>> I inquired over a week ago on Meta-Wiki why the WMF is reporting a
>> negative investment income (–$12 million). There has been no answer to
>> date.[1]
>>
>> I am a layperson, but how can an investment income be negative? Would you
>> mind sharing what this is about?
>>
>
> You probably didn't get a prompt answer because "how can investment income
> be negative" is something you could have Googled before asking the finance
> team.
>
> Investments can lose value.* The US stock market has lost a tremendous
> amount of value over the last year, so it would not be surprising that most
> investments would have a negative return recently.
>
> * https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negative-return.asp
> https://www.finra.org/investors/investing/investing-basics/risk
>
> I was also surprised to find that the reported increase in net assets for
>> the 2021–2022 financial year was "only" $8.2 million. The third-quarter F
>> tuning session published in May (based on data as of March 31) forecast a
>> far higher surplus, with an increase in net assets of $25.9 million.[2]
>>
>> Would you mind sharing what happened in the fourth quarter to reduce the
>> surplus by so much?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2021-2022_-_frequently_asked_questions
>> [2]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:45 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The WMF's audited financial statements are now available here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf
>>>
>>> Some key figures from the page numbered 4 (page 6 in the pdf):
>>>
>>> – Net invest income was negative: –$12M (down $16M)
>>> – Total support and revenue was $155M (down $8M due to that negative
>>> investment income)
>>> – Total expenses were $146M (up $34M)
>>> – Salaries and wages were $88M (up $20M)
>>> – Net assets at end of year increased by $8M
>>>
>>> For reference, the end-of-year increase in net assets forecast in the
>>> third-quarter Finance & Administration tuning session deck published in May
>>> 2022 was $25.9M:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wik

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Grants budgets

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Kassia,

Thank you very much. I am currently struggling to square the figures in the
reports on Meta with the figures provided in the Form 990.

For example, the Form 990 for the 2020-2021 financial year lists
grantmaking activities for various regions on pages 30–31 (with the same
figures then repeated on pages 32–35, split into grants for organisations
and individuals).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=30


The grantmaking amounts listed there sum to $3,475,062, don't they? (That
is the total at the bottom of page 31.)

Could you tell us where we can find that same figure on Meta-Wiki?

Or, if we can't find it, what is the difference in the reporting methods
used on Meta-Wiki vs. the Form 990?

Best,
Andreas

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:23 PM Kassia Echavarri-Queen <
kechavarriqu...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Dear Lodewijk,
>
> Thank you for the question. We have published on meta the Funding
> Distribution report
> for
> grants allocation for the past fiscal year as well as the prior two years.
> There are further regional learnings being shared on diff,  here is the post
> from the ESEAP region
> .
> We will also soon be publishing both a regional learning sessions on
> grantee self reported programming and impact report, as well as, a report
> on the feedback from applicants and committee members from the second round
> of funding from the first year of implementation of the new funds programs
> and regional committees.
>
> Thank you,
> Kassia
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:29 AM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Over the past year I've had the pleasure to serve on one of WIkimedia's
>> regional funding committees
>> . Together, these
>> committees get to allocate several millions of grant funding on behalf of
>> our movement.
>>
>> As I tried to have conversations about that, I noticed that the actual
>> amounts that each committee is allowed to allocate in their region, is not
>> published. I asked about this, and the response I get is that this is
>> "internal information" and it might make things cluttered (I don't know if
>> this is because the question got stuck in bureaucracy or because there is
>> an actual concern for clutter - I do have to admit that the grants pages
>> can be terribly confusing, but don't see how these numbers would change
>> that).
>>
>> I believe that it is important for transparency reasons, if not
>> essential, that we all know how much money in grants we are spending and
>> will be spending over the years in the various regions. Is there a stronger
>> reason to keep this information confidential/secret?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Lodewijk
>> ___
>> 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/4KE2SITV6PBDUIZIUZNQ4BOBEJFJGXKY/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> 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/VBJ72RNANCYZ4IORUDTIIWHNUGPJ4DUR/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/6LNV2NDHDKRTTFVEADYJHHDI4MKPBXPP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear WMF Finance staff,

I inquired over a week ago on Meta-Wiki why the WMF is reporting a negative
investment income (–$12 million). There has been no answer to date.[1]

I am a layperson, but how can an investment income be negative? Would you
mind sharing what this is about?

I was also surprised to find that the reported increase in net assets for
the 2021–2022 financial year was "only" $8.2 million. The third-quarter F
tuning session published in May (based on data as of March 31) forecast a
far higher surplus, with an increase in net assets of $25.9 million.[2]

Would you mind sharing what happened in the fourth quarter to reduce the
surplus by so much?

Best wishes,
Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2021-2022_-_frequently_asked_questions
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:45 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The WMF's audited financial statements are now available here:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf
>
> Some key figures from the page numbered 4 (page 6 in the pdf):
>
> – Net invest income was negative: –$12M (down $16M)
> – Total support and revenue was $155M (down $8M due to that negative
> investment income)
> – Total expenses were $146M (up $34M)
> – Salaries and wages were $88M (up $20M)
> – Net assets at end of year increased by $8M
>
> For reference, the end-of-year increase in net assets forecast in the
> third-quarter Finance & Administration tuning session deck published in May
> 2022 was $25.9M:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
>
___
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/5M36VZBWLE6P4XCDAVL7L3FEPGNSSQNX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The WMF's audited financial statements are now available here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf

Some key figures from the page numbered 4 (page 6 in the pdf):

– Net invest income was negative: –$12M (down $16M)
– Total support and revenue was $155M (down $8M due to that negative
investment income)
– Total expenses were $146M (up $34M)
– Salaries and wages were $88M (up $20M)
– Net assets at end of year increased by $8M

For reference, the end-of-year increase in net assets forecast in the
third-quarter Finance & Administration tuning session deck published in May
2022 was $25.9M:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3.pdf=5

Best,
Andreas
___
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/YF3FIVZFGJHCUSNIE63IGL4IHYBWSEAG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] The October Signpost is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 10 – 31 October 2022
--

>From the team: A new goose on the roost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/From_the_team


News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after
"somewhat-viral" tweet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_and_notes


News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_from_the_WMF


In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/In_the_media


Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/Disinformation_report


Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually
help Wikipedia editors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/Recent_research


Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/Interview


Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/Featured_content


Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/Serendipity


Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/Traffic_report


>From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes,
deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/From_the_archives



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
___
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/6TY6KFFQGRTXNHOGU7JI6FBL4TDC5W56/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Late publication of quarterly WMF tuning sessions

[Andreas Kolbe]

Nadee,

Thanks for your reply. But I understand from WMF staff that these tuning
sessions took place. So why can't the presentation decks be shared in the
normal manner?

Andreas

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 5:52 PM Nadee Gunasena 
wrote:

> Andreas,
>
> The Foundation’s new approach to annual planning has resulted in changes
> to the historic tuning sessions. We are planning to share an update on the
> last fiscal year by mid-November on Meta - we will be posting it at this
> link [1].
>
> Nadee
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/End_of_year_report_2022
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 3:42 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Nadee,
>>
>> Could you kindly provide us with an update on the outstanding tuning
>> session decks (see below)?
>>
>> It would be good to know if and when they will be published.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 1:53 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation has for many years published the presentation
>>> decks from its quarterly "check-ins" – a kind of progress report of each
>>> department – on Commons.[1]
>>>
>>> Each check-in or "tuning session", as they have been called in recent
>>> years, covers the relevant department's work during one quarter of the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation's financial year, which begins on July 1 and ends on
>>> June 30.
>>>
>>> It's part of the transparent management of the Foundation and allows the
>>> community and interested members of the public to track the Foundation's
>>> progress.
>>>
>>> In recent years, however, the time lag between the tuning sessions and
>>> publication of the related presentation decks on Commons appears to have
>>> become longer and longer.
>>>
>>> In 2020, the slides for the quarter ending June 30 were published on
>>> July 13. In 2021, they were published in late September/early October.
>>>
>>> This year, we are well into the second quarter of the 2022/2023
>>> financial year, and not a single fourth-quarter presentation deck appears
>>> to have been uploaded to Commons. The fourth quarter is particular
>>> important of course, as it shows end-of-year status. But the relevant
>>> Commons category still only shows the first three quarters' presentation
>>> decks.[1] A search for "tuning session pdf" on Commons finds no relevant
>>> matches either.
>>>
>>> Nor, of course, do we have appear to have any presentation decks for the
>>> first quarter of the 2022/2023 year, which ended two weeks ago.
>>>
>>> Is there a particular reason for the delay, and/or are the tuning
>>> sessions now made available elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_quarterly_check-ins
>>> and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/Tuning_sessions
>>> [2]
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_tuning_sessions,_FY2021-22
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Nadee Gunasena
> Chief of Staff
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
___
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/QZYZ6THJQX3FTPHWMNLFMFHJ5JMOQXB4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Late publication of quarterly WMF tuning sessions

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Nadee,

Could you kindly provide us with an update on the outstanding tuning
session decks (see below)?

It would be good to know if and when they will be published.

Best,
Andreas

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 1:53 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has for many years published the presentation
> decks from its quarterly "check-ins" – a kind of progress report of each
> department – on Commons.[1]
>
> Each check-in or "tuning session", as they have been called in recent
> years, covers the relevant department's work during one quarter of the
> Wikimedia Foundation's financial year, which begins on July 1 and ends on
> June 30.
>
> It's part of the transparent management of the Foundation and allows the
> community and interested members of the public to track the Foundation's
> progress.
>
> In recent years, however, the time lag between the tuning sessions and
> publication of the related presentation decks on Commons appears to have
> become longer and longer.
>
> In 2020, the slides for the quarter ending June 30 were published on July
> 13. In 2021, they were published in late September/early October.
>
> This year, we are well into the second quarter of the 2022/2023 financial
> year, and not a single fourth-quarter presentation deck appears to have
> been uploaded to Commons. The fourth quarter is particular important of
> course, as it shows end-of-year status. But the relevant Commons category
> still only shows the first three quarters' presentation decks.[1] A search
> for "tuning session pdf" on Commons finds no relevant matches either.
>
> Nor, of course, do we have appear to have any presentation decks for the
> first quarter of the 2022/2023 year, which ended two weeks ago.
>
> Is there a particular reason for the delay, and/or are the tuning sessions
> now made available elsewhere?
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_quarterly_check-ins
> and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/Tuning_sessions
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_tuning_sessions,_FY2021-22
>
___
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/5PF7TGUOONP5PUQRNW63QICUFG67GBK6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Late publication of quarterly WMF tuning sessions

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The Wikimedia Foundation has for many years published the presentation
decks from its quarterly "check-ins" – a kind of progress report of each
department – on Commons.[1]

Each check-in or "tuning session", as they have been called in recent
years, covers the relevant department's work during one quarter of the
Wikimedia Foundation's financial year, which begins on July 1 and ends on
June 30.

It's part of the transparent management of the Foundation and allows the
community and interested members of the public to track the Foundation's
progress.

In recent years, however, the time lag between the tuning sessions and
publication of the related presentation decks on Commons appears to have
become longer and longer.

In 2020, the slides for the quarter ending June 30 were published on July
13. In 2021, they were published in late September/early October.

This year, we are well into the second quarter of the 2022/2023 financial
year, and not a single fourth-quarter presentation deck appears to have
been uploaded to Commons. The fourth quarter is particular important of
course, as it shows end-of-year status. But the relevant Commons category
still only shows the first three quarters' presentation decks.[1] A search
for "tuning session pdf" on Commons finds no relevant matches either.

Nor, of course, do we have appear to have any presentation decks for the
first quarter of the 2022/2023 year, which ended two weeks ago.

Is there a particular reason for the delay, and/or are the tuning sessions
now made available elsewhere?

Best,
Andreas

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_quarterly_check-ins
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/Tuning_sessions
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_tuning_sessions,_FY2021-22
___
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/J4NSUWBR2T2FVRTERA6DUYQRD2WAWSZJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

> product that is not representative while it assumes that it does reflect a
> relevant opinion. An opinion that is mostly negative in its aspirations.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 20:28, Rexogamer  wrote:
>
>> It might be worth creating a unified "Newsletters across the Wikimedia
>> movement" email, consisting of the Signpost and any other
>> newsletters/publications produced/released by community members that month
>> - are there any other "newspapers"/publications created by Wikimedia
>> communities and released on a regular basis?
>>
>> - Sophie (User:Remagoxer)
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 19:23, Risker  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gerard (and everyone else) -
>>>
>>> I join with others in saying that links to other newsletters published
>>> on our various projects, and in various languages, would be a really
>>> valuable addition to this list.  Many of us would really like to learn
>>> about what different projects consider to be important. I'd really like to
>>> encourage that other newsletter links be posted on this list.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 07:31, Gerard Meijssen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> The problem with the arguments made in the Signpost is that they
>>>> represent English Wikipedia and adhere to what some consider what the pov
>>>> of Wikipedia should be. As a pov it is fine but I do consider it not a
>>>> publication that is representative. As such I do not need the
>>>> advertisements for its publication.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 06:50, WereSpielChequers <
>>>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While the Signpost is hosted on the English Wikipedia and started as
>>>>> very much an EN Wiki venture, it aspires to be of more general interest.
>>>>> Looking at that specific issue, yes there is much that is mainly English
>>>>> Wikipedia focused, including a small contribution of mine. But some of the
>>>>> content, such as about the WMF elections is of general community interest,
>>>>> and at least one story is about Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> WSC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 2
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 16:35:35 +0200
>>>>>> From: Gerard Meijssen 
>>>>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!
>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> >>>>> f...@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>>> boundary="c55e2e05e9fa0636"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> De Signpost is een publicatie van de Engelse Wikipedia. Waarom wordt
>>>>>> de
>>>>>> Wikimedia mailing list daarmee lastig gevallen?
>>>>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>>>>>GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 14:26, Andreas Kolbe 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Name: not available
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 613, Issue 1
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> 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/EW26JDC3PO2J4TO4K7VODOJ7R4CI75JR/
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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

[Wikimedia-l] The new Signpost is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 9 – 30 September 2022
--

News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop,
WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/News_and_notes


In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_focus


In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_the_media


Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Special_report


Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Discussion_report


Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Interview


Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Opinion


Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Serendipity


Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how
they could in the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Recent_research


Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Traffic_report


Featured content: Farm-fresh content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Featured_content


Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Gallery


CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/CommonsComix


>From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/From_the_archives



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
___
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/GN3462XQWXTIWJ76TTVCXLOIUPYVT3IW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Leadership Development Working Group is ready for community feedback!

[Andreas Kolbe]

It's not exactly volunteer time. According to the documentation on
Meta-Wiki[1] each of the 16 listed working group members is appointed for
one year, and receives a stipend of $600 per year for their participation
(estimated at 5 hours per week).

I am surprised to see that the working group includes one member who is
site-banned from the English Wikipedia. Their site ban, enacted by ArbCom
in 2016, was due to a history of sockpuppeting, self-promotion,
autobiographical editing, misrepresenting their professional
qualifications, copyright infringements, misrepresentation of sources and
introducing numerous errors into scientific articles.[2][3]

I would rather have seen that member apply for rehabilitation on the
English Wikipedia first, before applying for and being given a role in a
working group tasked with defining "good leadership" in the context of the
Wikimedia movement.

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Development_Working_Group/Purpose_and_Structure

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28WMF%29#Should_the_WMF_have_rules_or_policies_for_when_banned_users_apply_for_or_are_part_of_the_team_that_administers_grants%3F
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology=720092409#Findings_of_fact

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 12:05 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Sept 2022 at 10:36, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> "* This project is specifically to develop a leadership development plan
>> that the Community Development team, a team which has some great people on
>> it and a serious possibility for good in supporting volunteers, can use to
>> do their work effectively. *" - I'm a bit dismayed that we are using
>> volunteer time in the name of the strategy process to provide a centralised
>> WMF team with the knowledge they need to do their job. This is not what the
>> 2030 strategy is about - it is a  self-centred approach by a WMF team to
>> stay relevant.
>>
>
> If you don't think it's a worthwhile time investment for you, then you can
> choose not to participate. If others do feel it's worthwhile, they can
> choose to participate. If nobody chooses to participate, then I'd say
> there's a lesson to be learnt about the relevance of the consultation, and
> whether it was worth pursuing.
>
> I don't think we need to police the time of other volunteers. People can
> choose what to do.
>
___
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/TB5BEYK7GE7ZTBU3OC3Z6HJE2ANOBWNP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Leadership Development Working Group is ready for community feedback!

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Ramzy,

I wanted to acknowledge your eloquent post (for anyone who hasn't read it,
please do – DeepL and Google Translation do a really decent job), and in
particular your concern about the lack of representation of South East
Asian communities in movement governance.

But I would also like to share one thought about the importance of
leadership: it's that I think Wikimedians are not particularly keen on
having leaders to follow. Projects like Wikipedia, Wiktionary and so on
grew precisely because there *was* no leadership. They provided a space
free of pre-imposed leadership.

This is what attracted people: you could do something, contribute
something, without having to ask an authority figure for permission. People
were *trusted*, not *led*.

This being so, I believe leadership is of limited value in terms of growing
participation in line with this volunteer model.

Kind regards,
Andreas

On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 12:27 PM Ramzy Muliawan 
wrote:

> Pertama-tama saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih yang setinggi-tingginya
> kepada Kelompok Kerja Pembinaan Kepemimpinan yang telah menghasilkan
> definisi ini. Saya pikir ini satu langkah maju yang diperlukan untuk
> mendorong implementasi rekomendasi Strategi Gerakan mengenai penanaman
> modal dalam pembinaan keterampilan dan kepemimpinan.
>
> Berkebalikan dengan respon-respon negatif yang diterima oleh prakarsa ini,
> saya rasa mendefinisikan bentuk kepemimpinan yang diperlukan oleh gerakan
> Wikimedia secara luas adalah sesuatu yang sudah semestinya kita miliki,
> sebagai sebuah gerakan antarabangsa yang memiliki jaringan dan struktur
> tata kelola yang rumit, saling terkait, dan mengandalkan waktu para
> sukarelawan yang berharga.
>
> Diskusi mengenai pembinaan kepemimpinan terutama sekali bersifat mendesak
> untuk wilayah gerakan Wikimedia yang tidak pernah, atau kurang sekali,
> terwakili dalam tata kelola gerakan secara global. Saya berbicara tentang
> wilayah asal saya, rantau Asia Tenggara dan Pasifik, yang memiliki tingkat
> keberagaman proyek Wikimedia yang sangat tinggi, barangkali hanya dapat
> disaingi oleh beberapa wilayah lain dalam gerakan; organisasi-organisasi
> mitra lokal yang aktif; dan basis penyunting maupun pasar pembaca yang
> terus berkembang seiring dengan penetrasi Internet yang semakin mendalam.
> Meski wilayah ini memiliki status-status sedemikian, Wikimediawan/wati dari
> rantau Asia Tenggara tidak pernah ada yang berhasil duduk di Dewan Pengawas
> Yayasan Wikimedia, dan keterwakilan dari rantau ini sangat terbatas pada
> badan-badan tata kelola gerakan seperti Komite Afiliasi, Komite Bahasa,
> bahkan badan yang saat ini bertugas untuk merumuskan piagam gerakan. Hal
> ini tentu saja tidak dapat dijelaskan secara tunggal melalui "kecelakaan
> sejarah", tetapi akan jauh lebih mudah untuk melihatnya dari lensa
> kurangnya penanaman modal dan komitmen jangka panjang untuk urusan
> kepemimpinan ini.
>
> Kerja-kerja ini tidak akan selesai dalam waktu dekat, dan tidak akan
> menghasilkan suatu hasil akhir yang dapat memuaskan seluruh pihak yang
> memiliki kepentingan dalam gerakan Wikimedia. Namun, apa yang dapat kita
> lakukan tentu saja adalah mencoba terlebih dahulu. Masalah-masalah seperti
> yang saya sebutkan di atas, dalam konteks rantau asal saya namun juga saya
> tahu terjadi pada beberapa wilayah lain, tidak akan selesai dengan saling
> menuding dan mempermasalahkan apakah kerja-kerja ini perlu dilakukan atau
> tidak.
>
> Saya mengajak para Wikimediawan/wati yang memiliki perhatian khusus pada
> hal ini untuk turut serta membantu Kelompok Kerja dalam diskusi yang
> penting ini.
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 14:29 Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
>
>> I, too, would appreciate such enlightenment, Cheers, Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 16 September 2022 20:48
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Leadership Development Working Group is
>> ready for community feedback!
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Ivan,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am very sorry, but I honestly don't understand what any of this is for,
>> and why the WMF is spending money on defining leadership – money collected
>> under the pretence that money is urgently needed to keep Wikipedia online –
>> given that community feedback to this initiative to date seems to be
>> largely negative.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leadership_Development_Working_Group
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not like the world lacks definitions of leadership. Aren't we
>> spending donors' money to reinvent the wheel here?
>>
>>
>>
>> Could I refer back to an interesting thread Samuel Klein started a wh

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Leadership Development Working Group is ready for community feedback!

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Rae,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. It hasn't alleviated my concerns.

I am reminded of Alfred Korzybski, who stressed that "the word is not the
thing", that "the map is not the territory".

If we want to adopt his distinction of map and territory, then I see this
project as an effort focused on map making. Spending time and money to
imagine and color in a map of the future can be fun, but it's not as
important in my opinion as moving from A to B in the actual territory
today.

The best way to arrive at a bright future is to focus on what needs to be
done, or can be done, today – not on where we would like to be in two,
three or ten years' time. If you consistently do your best to respond to
the needs of the present, you build a strong future, step by step.
Wikipedia grew organically. Now it seems to me we are needlessly straining.

Maps are of limited use when there is no movement. As Gnangarra said the
other day here on this list, in what I thought was a very astute
post, "strategy started 7 years ago and yet we still haven't even reached
the implementation of anything."

To the extent that this characterisation is accurate – and the thread
started by Samuel, which is well worth revisiting, had many people
expressing similar ideas – it illustrates how investing energy into maps
can actually divert energy from making progress on the ground. And progress
has to happen in the territory, not the map, for the journey to be
successful.

An "investment in process" is precisely what Samuel was talking about when
he said: "Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on
process. ... What challenges do [we] need to resolve this year?"

Best,
Andreas



On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:49 PM Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey Andreas!
>
> Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. For context, I am a member of the
> LDWG, and a steward. We have two stews on the working group, a bunch of
> admins, and a bunch of affiliate organizers – it's an experientially
> diverse bunch.
>
> I applied for the LDWG in part because I have concerns about the
> efficiency of future capacity-building models. Accepting that leadership
> development is a movement strategy goal and likely to be involved in future
> actions related to the Movement Charter, I want it to be as effective as
> possible. In more specific terms, not simply an outgrowth of the high
> cost-per-new-editor edit-a-thon model which leaves unclear long-term
> benefit and doesn't put sufficient effort into developing effective
> community facilitators or long-term resources for editor onboarding and
> mentorship.
>
> The LDWG is not a stand-alone working group developing something no one
> will read, nor is it uninterested with the concerns of local editing
> communities. The plan we're working on will guide future capacity building
> activities on Wikimedia projects, and a good plan will positively affect
> the outcome of that capacity building.
>
> I understand the concerns questioning the benefit of a definition of
> leadership. It is a first step of sorts; it's difficult to work towards
> fostering good Wikimedia leadership without defining good Wikimedia
> leadership, a relatively idiosyncratic type of leadership that falls much
> closer to facilitation and mentorship than actually setting goals or
> "leading" in the traditional sense. From this definition, we can overview
> existing capacity building activities, their effectiveness, possibilities
> for improvement, and develop a plan with concrete and actionable
> recommendations to ensure that donor money spent towards leadership
> development is money well spent.
>
> This is an investment in process, not an investment in navel-gazing.
>
> I hope this has helped alleviate some of your concerns.
>
> Best regards,
> Rae
>
> 
> User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia
> projects
> they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter
> <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>)
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 3:05 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Ivan,
>>
>> I am very sorry, but I honestly don't understand what any of this is for,
>> and why the WMF is spending money on defining leadership – money collected
>> under the pretence that money is urgently needed to keep Wikipedia online –
>> given that community feedback to this initiative to date seems to be
>> largely negative.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leadership_Development_Working_Group
>>
>> It is not like the world lacks definitions of leadership. Aren't we
>> spending donors' money to reinvent the wheel here?
>>
>> Could I refer back to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Decentralized fundraising, centralized distribution

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Nate,

You say, "By contrast, the bulk of mission-related services from the
Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large centrally by the
international office (i.e. the Wikimedia projects)."

Just think about this statement for a moment. It is not true. The bulk of
mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the
world at large by volunteers distributed all over the world, some of whom
organise themselves into local affiliates.

How do we know this? We know this because Wikipedia became a top-10 website
serving the world in 2007, at a time when the WMF had less than a dozen
staff and annual expenses of $2 million.

I'm not advocating a return to those times, but I think it makes clear
where the value came from.

Best,
Andreas

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022, Nathan  wrote:
> Hi Nicole,
> Thanks for sharing this - very interesting reading so far. I'm hoping you
can elaborate on WMDE's thinking around selecting INGOs for evaluation.
Your criteria is very straightforward - INGOs with a confederation of
independent organizations, connected by a global mission.
> But each of your selected INGOs is composed of individual organizations
that deliver the products and services that advance the global mission
within their geographic area, with an "international office" that fulfills
a coordination and governance role. By contrast, the bulk of
mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the
world at large centrally by the international office (i.e. the Wikimedia
projects). Did WMDE consider how comparable these INGOs are to the
Wikimedia movement in this sense? I don't see a section of your paper that
compares the service/product delivery structure of these INGOs, so perhaps
this distinction did not come up during your review? Or is the thinking
that decentralization of project hosting and support is on the table, and
the report can inform that consideration?
> Thanks for any insight you can share,
> Nate
___
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/MYEOTJM4HXACTGXDTOJZLKWNVULL44LZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Poll of Wikipedians concludes: Wikimedia fundraising emails are misleading

[Andreas Kolbe]

A poll at the English Wikipedia’s “Village Pump” – one of the prime meeting
places for the volunteer editors who write and curate Wikipedia – has
overwhelmingly concluded that Wikimedia Foundation fundraising emails due
to be sent to donors shortly are unethical and misleading. It is the first
time there has been a structured community poll to review the Foundation’s
fundraising emails ahead of a major fundraising campaign.


The “Village Pump” thread, advertised on the community’s “Centralized
discussion” noticeboard for the past three weeks, reviews three sample
emails the Wikimedia Foundation has made available on its Meta-Wiki
website. They are very similar to emails used in previous campaigns,
including the recent campaign in India.[1]


These emails ask past donors for more money to keep Wikipedia online, to
keep Wikipedia ad-free and subscription-free, and to keep Wikipedia
independent.


In fact, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets
and reserves (including an Endowment with the Tides Foundation now holding
well over $100 million) have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an
estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022.


For comparison, in 2007, the year Wikipedia first became a top-ten website
serving the world, the Foundation reported total annual expenses of $2
million.[2]


According to the Wikimedia Foundation, this latest set of fundraising
emails will be sent out to past Wikimedia donors in Australia, Canada,
Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the US from September 6 to November 20,
2022. Email campaigns account for about a third of Wikimedia revenue.


A WMF Community Relations Specialist briefly contributed to the “Village
Pump” discussion two weeks ago (to confirm that the licence information for
one of the pictures used in the emails would be corrected). Other than
that, there has been no comment from the Foundation on the poll to date.


The RfC can be viewed here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29=1108428168#RfC_%28WMF_fundraising_emails%29


Below are some representative quotes from the poll.


40 respondents expressed their objection to the use of these emails in
terms like the following:


“These manipulative emails make us little different than an evil
corporation. We should do everything in our power to change this.”


“Deeply misleading.”


“Misleading and unethical.”


“Misleading, and I'm choosing a very mild word here. …”


“… These recurring emails with their appearance of being reluctantly
written in a crisis degrade the benevolence which is the core of the
project. …”


“The percentagewise breakdown is galling, because the categories aren't
even distinct. …”


“These fundraising messages are (nearly) unrelated to reality. …”


“… the usual distortions and half-truths …”


“… untrue, and possibly a deliberate and fraudulent lie. …”


“… at best misleading, and that's being generous.”


“The language used is highly misleading. That something is effective does
not make that something ethical.”


“The %s are incredibly misleading. …”


“The percentages are misleading and inspecific, for one. …”


“… I suspect that messages like these are, indeed, effective. If I stuck a
gun in someone's face, that would probably also be a very effective way of
getting them to give me money. The question in both cases, however, is
whether doing so is *ethical*. These messages in the most charitable
reading distort the truth, and in a more realistic one flat out lie. …”


“… What I do object to is when an oganisation whose product is based on
claims of accuracy, honesty, and neutrality, resorts to a fundraising
campaign based on lies and deception. …”


“It is really important that a charity's marketing be in accord with the
core values of that charity and a serious risk if they undermine them. Our
core values are in providing factual information. …”


“… too disappointing to put into words really.”


“… the revelation that several people end up contributing money they can't
afford because of the pressing tone of these emails is genuinely horrifying
to me.”


“… misleading, vague, emotionally pressing statements that lead people to
part with their money under circumstances that are not honest.”


“… Running a scaremongering campaign risks that people will give money to
the WMF and then not give money to causes that are much more in need of
money … It is disgusting to see a charity sitting on fat stacks of cash
that still tries to get a bigger slice of the donation pie.”


“These spams are just toxic and horrible. …”


“… deceptive to the point of dishonesty … inappropriate pressure put on
previous donors to give more money.”


“The Wikimedia Foundation is at odds with the ethics and values of the
Wikimedia community.”


Three respondents endorsed the emails. They said,


“… I think this is fine. There are a few fundraising ‘tactics’ used but
nothing remotely unethical. …”


“When you hire someone to raise 

[Wikimedia-l] The new Signpost is out!

[Andreas Kolbe]

The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 8 – 31 August 2022
--

News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted
on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/News_and_notes


Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Special_report


In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/In_the_media


Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Discussion_report


News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/News_from_Wiki_Education


In focus: Thinking inside the box
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/In_focus


Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Tips_and_tricks


Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Technology_report


Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Serendipity


Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Featured_content


Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Recent_research


Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Traffic_report


Essay: Delete the junk!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Essay


Gallery: A Fringe Affair (but not the show by Edward W. Feery that was on
this year)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Gallery


Humour: CommonsComix No. 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Humour


>From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/From_the_archives



Single-page view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
___
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/MVLI4L35RY7SBL23ILOUETBY7DXAKTRB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period is now open

[Andreas Kolbe]

The on-wiki voting instructions in all the other languages still make no
mention of the videos.

Andreas

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
> I'm surprised to see that this announcement includes no mention of the
videos that the candidates created answering community questions[1] and
instead highlights the affiliate questions from the earlier phase of the
election.  The on-wiki instructions also made no mention of the videos
until a community member added them,[2] and the posting of the videos was
not announced on this list until Andreas did it.[3]
> To be clear, the decision to channel campaign activities into video
rather than text settings was both inconvenient and inequitable, both for
the candidates and for voters, and probably doomed any chance to have the
candidates' answers translated for non-English-speaking voters.  There are
no usable transcripts available[4], except for the written answers from the
one candidate who has opted to provide them.[5]  But since this is the path
that was chosen, I don't think it's right to bury what little community
engagement we had.
> Emufarmers
>
> [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Campaign_Videos
> [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting=23706531=23660982
> [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Questions_for_Candidates=prev=23691840
> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Campaign_Videos=23709100
> [5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Questions_for_Candidates/Sorted
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 1:22 AM Mahuton Possoupe <
mpossoupe-...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The Community Voting period for the 2022 Board of Trustees election is
now open. Here are some helpful links to get you the information you need
to vote:
>>
>> Try the Election Compass, showing how candidates stand on 15 different
topics.
>> Read the candidate statements and answers to Affiliate questions
>> Learn more about the skills the Board seeks and how the Analysis
Committee found candidates aligned with those skills
>>
>> If you are ready to vote, you may go to SecurePoll voting page to vote
now. You may vote from August 23 at 00:00 UTC to September 6 at 23:59
UTC. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter
eligibility page.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Movement Strategy and Governance
>>
>> *This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and
the Elections Committee*
>>
>> --
>>
>> <
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yBcvUBz7x7xW_texDbyEnK7BKs9wPMPAI4NuqDit5ipBVl-TBu9JIdHdySi6iZA1UTcm3AzWcx8bfkDvjMaftQqxtKRkjORZgmQ53i7g9bVQ6rEy7NhGdz4mZ6AcTe2tIAyMD9wH
>
>>
>> Mahuton POSSOUPE (He/Him)
>>
>> Movement Strategy & Board Governance facilitator
>>
>> French-speaking communities
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> ___
>> 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/XXYJNFPMRW3KH4BU2X22SML7OM7PPTYA/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/YQ3WETNCOPCZZDHTPXIFHREHY74A36CB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Quim and all,

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:18 AM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If anyone finds the report
> 
> biased, it would be helpful to share the excerpts or the absences that
> prove this bias. We are happy to amend any mistakes, but for that we need
> to identify them.
>

I would start with the first sentence of the summary. This currently reads:

"The result of the community review is positive."

This is not a neutral summary of even the report's own content, which
accurately describes sentiments as "mixed". The summary continues:

"The goal of the MS Forum is: *to improve community collaboration around
Movement Strategy (MS) on a multilingual platform that is welcoming and
easy to use. *The participation and support received during the community
review support the premise. Close to 300 people participated in the
community review; many participants were from Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. Many are contributors from medium-size and small Wikimedia
projects."

We all know few people read Wikipedia articles from beginning to end. Most
just scan the first couple of paragraphs. The same will apply to this page.

The fact that none of the negative community feedback has made it into the
Summary's first paragraph makes this report come across like an
ideologically driven ad, designed to shape opinion rather than reflect it.

So, revising the summary, starting with the first sentence, would be a good
place to begin.

Best,
Andreas
___
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/S5JMHAMDEMYCRBBOFM5UWDUPHPVRPMUY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] 2022 WMF board election - candidates' video answers to questions have been posted

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The WMF board candidates' video answers to six questions proposed and
selected by the community have been posted on Meta-Wiki. You can find them
here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Campaign_Videos

Written answers to additional community questions that were proposed but
did not make it into the top six can be found on the following page
(further answers may still be added to this page in the days ahead, so do
check back):

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Questions_for_Candidates/Sorted

Best,
Andreas
___
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/C7CDWWKFK35KDROK5N3TTWD2LHP4LFBY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

It's unfortunate that this has to be said, but:

– A community review report should be written by the community, not the WMF.
– The idea of democracy is not that the government should elect a new
people.

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 5:02 PM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> The Movement Strategy Forum  (MS
> Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
> Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
> participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
> build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
>
> The Movement Strategy
>  is
> a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
> Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to
> a full-time project.
>
> Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations, and
> ask questions in your language.
>
> The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for
> this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published
> the Community Review Report
> .
>  It
> includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the
> next steps.
>
> We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> 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/AGOGIWTJSGTHKHQTHM5B2BCLC7B53TXL/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/CKSOB6WWPCZTJAPYQ5SA5YVDIKFVYJCD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] The new Signpost issue (Aug. 1) is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

July has ended and a new Signpost issue is out – complete with an Election
Guide that includes op-eds by all six shortlisted candidates for the WMF
Board, and candidates' answers to community questions on the associated
talk pages.

There's also detailed coverage of the recent hubbub surrounding the English
Wikipedia's "Recession" article (see "In the Media" and "Op-Ed") and the
Russian government's new action against Wikipedia (see "In the Media" and
"News and Notes"), along with other news such as Facebook's
Wikipedia-related AI initiatives, the great Chinese history hoax and Wikipedia
articles' alleged impact on court decisions (see "In the Media"). Enjoy!


   - From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
   



   - News and notes: Information considered harmful
   



   - In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains",
   FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
   



   - Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
   


   - Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
   



   - Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of
   Trustees elections
   



   - Community view: Youth culture and notability
   



   - Opinion: Criminals among us
   



   - Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion
   dustup draws toward denouement
   



   - Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
   



   - Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile
   editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
   



   - Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US,
   UK top charts for July
   



   - Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
   



   - Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
   



   - In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool
   



   - On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three
   (more) stories
   



   - Essay: How to research an image
   


   - Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
   



   - Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
   



   - Gallery: A backstage pass
   



   - From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
   



   - Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?
   



* *Read this Signpost in full
* * Single-page

 *
___
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/V2FKQDPJVZPIJQ5IBZCFK56IM6L7XEXL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] At-Large Directors for the Wikimedia Endowment Board

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Lisa, Julie and all,

The WMF is apparently looking for four to eleven "At-Large Directors for
the Wikimedia Endowment Board".[1][2]

Could you provide the community with a little information about this role?

Also, there have been no updates on the total funds held in the
Endowment[3] since the WMF communicated the June 30, 2021 status (which is
when the Endowment exceeded $100 million) – nor, indeed, have there ever
been any public accounts at all for the Endowment since its inception in
2016.

Could you please let us know the June 30, 2022 status?

Best regards,
Andreas


[1] https://twitter.com/juliesausy/status/1550112972722188290
[2]
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimediaendowment/jobs/4226183?gh_src=24038f881us
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
___
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/4LCVNMYUGCVTAMEIR3AXW77FOMJTJIO2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Propose statements for the 2022 Election Compass for the Board of Trustees election

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Jackie,

Per the timeline you communicated on July 9 (quoted below), upvoting of the
proposed statements for the Election Compass was meant to start on July
23rd:

*July 21 - 22:* Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and
removes off-topic statements
*July 23 - August 1:* Volunteers vote on the statements

However, there is no sign of this community vote having started, or of the
previous stage (Juy 21–22) having been completed.

Would you have an update?

Regards,
Andreas

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 11:24 PM Jackie Koerner 
wrote:

> *You can find this message translated into additional languages on
> Meta-wiki.
> *
> *More languages
> 
>  • Please
> help translate to your language
> *
>
> Hi all,
>
> Community members in the 2022 Board of Trustees election
> 
>  are
> invited to propose statements to use in the Election Compass.
> 
>
> An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that
> best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose
> statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale
> (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be
> loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering
> in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results
> will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.
>
> Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:
>
> July 8 - 20: Community members propose statements for the Election Compass
>
> July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and
> removes off-topic statements
>
> July 23 - August 1: Volunteers vote on the statements
>
> August 2 - 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements
>
> August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements
>
> August 15: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide
> their voting decision
>
> The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning
> of August. The Elections Committee will oversee the process, supported by
> the Movement Strategy and Governance team. MSG will check that the
> questions are clear, there are no duplicates, no typos, and so on.
>
> Best,
>
> Movement Strategy and Governance
>
> *This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the
> Elections Committee*
>
> --
>
> Jackie Koerner (she/her) Communication Specialist, Movement Strategy and
> Governance Location: Midwestern US (UTC-5)
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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/SVLA344XRHODMFV6F7CU5V7BVQ47GD2D/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/SBWD2CCK6MSCDVJUHKJWTBDFWCCMRCJV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Seven Wikimedia chapters rejected as permanent observers to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Jan,

Well, the accuracy of the press release would be enhanced if it mentioned
the support China received from over a dozen other countries.

This isn't just my opinion:

https://twitter.com/Wikiland/status/1550515724673761280

Congratulations on the ECOSOC accreditation.

Andreas



On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 1:36 PM Jan Gerlach  wrote:

> Hi Andreas
>
> China was in fact the only country to oppose the Wikimedia chapters'
> request for observer status. Other countries for political or unknown
> reasons may have aligned with China's position on process, but no country
> besides China unilaterally or independently opposed the Wikimedia chapters'
> request.
>
> Relatedly, you may have seen that the Wikimedia Foundation just obtained
> accreditation at the UN's Economic and Social Affairs Council where a
> similar situation was unblocked by a vote of the member countries:
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/07/22/wikimedia-foundation-earns-accreditation-to-the-united-nations-economic-and-social-affairs-council-ecosoc/
>
>
> Best,
> Jan
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> Jan Gerlach
> Public Policy Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> jgerl...@wikimedia.org
>
>
> Andreas Kolbe  schrieb am Fr., 22. Juli 2022, 19:44:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A week ago, the WMF issued a press release, "Seven Wikimedia chapters
>> rejected as permanent observers to the World Intellectual Property
>> Organization (WIPO)":
>>
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/07/15/seven-wikimedia-chapters-rejected-as-permanent-observers-to-wipo/
>>
>> This stated, in part, "China was the only country to oppose the Wikimedia
>> chapters’ request for observer status, again, claiming that chapters were
>> complicit in spreading disinformation and are subsidiaries of the Wikimedia
>> Foundation. These statements are unfounded and misrepresent Wikipedia’s
>> model which prioritizes accuracy, neutrality, as well as the fact that the
>> chapters are completely autonomous."
>>
>> About a week ago, I had seen and retweeted a Twitter thread[1] by James
>> Love[2], the Director of Knowledge Ecology International, listing a whole
>> litany of countries that had supported China's position.
>>
>> I checked the webcast of the July 15 WIPO proceedings today,[3] and there
>> were over a dozen countries – Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan,
>> Tajikistan, Iran, Syria, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia,
>> Venezuela, North Korea – that took the floor to support and endorse China's
>> position – more, in fact, than took the floor to support the chapters'
>> approval.
>>
>> Would it be possible to amend the press release accordingly?
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1] https://twitter.com/jamie_love/status/1550520525180518400
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Love_(NGO_director)
>> [3] Available here: https://webcast.wipo.int/ (afternoon session of July
>> 15, part 6. Admission of Observers)
>> ___
>> 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/FFW3N6PUH4FBTVTARHVY7KRYK57T5NTP/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> 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/D2PSLNKVG2DJXVUTXPA5374TTHPPCFMK/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/TPITH2A7Y4KPCXXNNXRPD4T4K2JIFL32/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Maryana, Jeff, and all,

Allow me to raise a couple of points with respect to the interview
published yesterday in the San Francisco Examiner, titled "What does the
CEO who oversees Wikipedia do? We ask her."

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/what-does-the-ceo-who-oversees-wikipedia-do-we-ask-her/article_a7ab64fe-084d-11ed-830c-77f61ed96d7d.html

I'll quote the relevant passages.

1. "[Q:] *You said there’s hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. So
how many people get paid and are professional editors of Wikipedia?* [A:]
Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people helping the rest of us
make sure that we find information on the internet that is accurate and
verified and cited and sourced. There are employees of the Wikimedia
Foundation that provide support to these communities and volunteers, but
the volunteers themselves are not paid staff."

This is a good statement inasmuch as it makes clear that Wikipedia is
written and curated by volunteers, countering the widespread but erroneous
assumption that the WMF's paid staff plays an active role in this. On the
other hand, that point had already been made, and given that this appears
to have been a direct question about how many paid and professional editors
of Wikipedia there are, the article would have benefited from a mention of
the thousands of editors who *are* paid by individuals and organisations
(other than the WMF). There are over 5,000 Wikipedia editors who openly
disclose being paid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search=100=0=1=This+user%2C+in+accordance+with+the+Wikimedia+Foundation%27s+Terms+of+Use%2C+discloses+that+they+have+been+paid+by

To these must be added an unknown number of additional paid editors who
operate without disclosure, or use a different method of disclosure than
the one searched for by this URL. Could this be added to the article, and
mentioned in future interviews where this question is asked?

2. "[A:] ... We have roughly 600 people scattered across over 40 countries
and every region of the world. ..."

The article would have given a more accurate impression if it had mentioned
that well over half of these are based in the US. Could this info be added,
and included in future interviews?

3. "[Q:] *Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to
give money? *[A:] They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in
Wikipedia to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An
enterprise that doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. I’m not
incentivizing you to stay longer than you need to stay."

The WMF has never asked for money to ensure that things "can remain" as
they are, or to avoid having to put up ads. It has asked for money to
enable exponential growth of the Wikimedia Foundation – whose salary costs
have increased tenfold over the past decade[1] – and to accumulate vast
reserves, which have increased by an even greater factor over that time
period. Last year alone, the Foundation's assets and the Wikimedia
Endowment together grew by about $90 million dollars, a surplus that is
almost the equivalent of one full year's expenses.[2] Seen in this context,
I find the answer given paints a misleading picture, especially given a
prior sentence saying that "her 600-employee organization humbly raises
funds to keep operating ..." – as though there were an acute need for
donations to keep the WMF going.

I'd love to see the WMF communicate more openly and transparently about the
growth of its organisation and the additional things it is doing, or
planning to do, with its additional funds, and to see more detailed media
reporting on Wikimedia's financial growth. The WMF pattern of growth is
really markedly different from that of other donor-funded organisations
that have a more or less stable budget – there is a story here that is
being missed.

Best,
Andreas

[1] See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries#Total_salaries_per_financial_statements
For sources see the PDFs linked in the table shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development
[2] See the following articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/Special_report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
___
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/I32UGYRNSRV32NO4GTDIRZ6GYP2VZS7T/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Seven Wikimedia chapters rejected as permanent observers to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

A week ago, the WMF issued a press release, "Seven Wikimedia chapters
rejected as permanent observers to the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO)":

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/07/15/seven-wikimedia-chapters-rejected-as-permanent-observers-to-wipo/

This stated, in part, "China was the only country to oppose the Wikimedia
chapters’ request for observer status, again, claiming that chapters were
complicit in spreading disinformation and are subsidiaries of the Wikimedia
Foundation. These statements are unfounded and misrepresent Wikipedia’s
model which prioritizes accuracy, neutrality, as well as the fact that the
chapters are completely autonomous."

About a week ago, I had seen and retweeted a Twitter thread[1] by James
Love[2], the Director of Knowledge Ecology International, listing a whole
litany of countries that had supported China's position.

I checked the webcast of the July 15 WIPO proceedings today,[3] and there
were over a dozen countries – Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Iran, Syria, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia,
Venezuela, North Korea – that took the floor to support and endorse China's
position – more, in fact, than took the floor to support the chapters'
approval.

Would it be possible to amend the press release accordingly?

Best,
Andreas

[1] https://twitter.com/jamie_love/status/1550520525180518400
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Love_(NGO_director)
[3] Available here: https://webcast.wipo.int/ (afternoon session of July
15, part 6. Admission of Observers)
___
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/FFW3N6PUH4FBTVTARHVY7KRYK57T5NTP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing the Wikimedia Foundation’s Human Rights Impact Assessment

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Richard and all,

The recommendations from this 2020 report that you have published now make
interesting reading.

– Some (UCoC, Human Rights Policy) have clearly been implemented since you
received the report two years ago.
– Others (training for admins and rights holders) are in the process of
implementation/community negotiation.
– Some ("audit protocol to assess projects that are at high risk of capture
or government-sponsored disinformation") have been at least partially
implemented (Croatian Wikipedia, disinformation hires; Japanese Wikipedia?).
– Others ("provide access to a geotargeted suicide prevention hotline at
the top of the articles on Suicide Methods") have neither been discussed
(to my knowledge) nor implemented to date.
– Yet others ("develop a Content Oversight Committee (COC) to review
content with a focus on bias and have the ability to make binding editorial
decisions in line with ICCPR 19") have not been discussed, and
implementation status in the various language versions is unknown.

Could you provide an overview here or on Meta as to the status of each of
the priority recommendations?

I append the complete set of priority recommendations below for everybody's
reference.

Best,
Andreas

Article One developed a suite of recommendations to address each category
of salient risks. *We recognize the need to engage and secure input from
Wikimedia’s vast volunteer base and as such recommend that the Foundation
consult with volunteers and other experts to determine the best path
forward.* Priority recommendations include:
Strategies for the Foundation

*1.  *Develop a standalone Human Rights Policy that commits to
respecting all internationally recognized human rights by referencing the
International Bill of Human Rights.

*2.  *Conduct ongoing human rights due diligence to continually assess
risks to rightsholders. A Foundation-level HRIA should be conducted every
three years or whenever significant changes could have an effect on human
rights.

*3.  *Develop rights-compatible channels to address human rights
concerns, including private channels, and ensure alignment with the UNGPs’
effectiveness criteria.
Harmful Content

*1.  *Develop an audit protocol to assess projects that are at high
risk of capture or government-sponsored disinformation.

*2.  *Develop a Content Oversight Committee (COC) to review content
with a focus on bias and have the ability to make binding editorial
decisions in line with ICCPR 19.

*3.  *Continue efforts outlined in the Knowledge Integrity white paper
to develop: a) a machine-readable representation of knowledge that exists
within Wikimedia projects along with its provenance; b) models to assess
the quality of information provenance; and c) models to assess content
neutrality and bias. Ensure that all AI/ML tools are designed to detect
content and action that would be considered illegal under international
human rights law, and that the response aligns with the threepart ICCPR
test requiring that any restriction on the right to free expression be
legal, proportional, and necessary.

*4.  *Provide access to a geotargeted suicide prevention hotline at the
top of the articles on Suicide Methods.
Harassment

*1.  *Develop and deploy training programs for admins and volunteers
with advanced rights on detecting and responding to harassment claims.

*2.  *Commission a “social norms marketing” research project to assess
what type of messaging is likely to reduce and prevent harassing comments
and actions.

*3.  *Explore opportunities to rate the toxicity of users, helping to
identify repeat offenders and patterns of harassment. Consider awards for
projects with the lowest toxicity levels.

*4.  *Consider developing admin metrics focused on enforcing civility
and applying the forthcoming Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).

*5.  *Ensure that the (UCoC) and its accompanying governance mechanism
is reviewed by human rights experts, including experts on free expression
and incitement to violence.
Government surveillance and censorship

*1.  *Continue efforts underway as part of the IP-masking project to
further protect users from public identification.

*2.  *Develop awareness-raising tools and programs for all volunteers
to understand and mitigate risks of engagement. Tools should be made
publicly available and should be translated into languages spoken by
volunteers in higher risk regions.[1] <#_ftn1>
Risks to child rights

*1.  *Conduct a child rights impact assessment of Wikimedia projects,
including conducting interviews and focus groups with child contributors
across the globe.

*2.  *Create child safeguarding tools, including child-friendly
guidance on privacy settings, data collection, reporting of grooming
attempts, the forthcoming UCoC as well a “Child’s Guide to Editing
Wikimedia Project” to help advance the right of children to be civically
engaged.
Limitations on knowledge equity

*1.  

[Wikimedia-l] The new Signpost is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi all,

It is the end of June and a new Signpost issue has been published:


   - News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns,
   blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
   



   - In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news,
   Guy Standing takes it sitting down
   



   - Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of
   dosh"?
   



   - Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled,
   mass drafting bid pulled
   



   - Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it
   



   - Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's
   action flick deemed brilliant prose
   



   - Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy?
   


   - Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables'
   "immortality" probed
   



   - Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
   



   - News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
   



   - Traffic report: Top view counts for shows, movies, and celeb lawsuit
   that keeps on giving
   



   - Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
   



   - Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel
   



* *Read this Signpost in full
* * Single-page

 *
___
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/RTPARYQSD442CAHP5DOKEPVW2LCFBA3M/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikimedia Enterprise API project

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Liam,

There seem to be (at least) two types of presentations on Wikimedia
Enterprise here: a PR-optimised one for public consumption, given here, and
an internal one. I'd like the difference between the two to be smaller,
ideally, and for the community (also) to be given the internal one, as
found in Advancement's Q3 "tuning session" (quarterly review):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3_Advancement.pdf=7

This says:

--

*The situation *
Although we successfully closed an initial set of paying customers for
Wikimedia Enterprise at the end of the last calendar year, and have
continued to have ongoing sales conversations with additional potential
customers, we have been unable to close additional customers as quickly as
we projected due to unanticipated legal and product requirements, and will
not hit the revenue target for FY21/22.

*The impact *
We are developing a clearer picture of what is required to successfully
scale sales of the Wikimedia Enterprise product within our non-profit
context. In particular, we need to redefine, and better articulate, the
relationship between our free and paid APIs, so that we can successfully
explain why they would choose our paid, commercial-grade services rather
than our free APIs.

*Recommendation *
We are working with the legal team to develop a contractual structure that
allows us to sell to a wider set of countries, and with the product team to
better delineate the relationship between our free and paid API services,
so that by the end of this calendar year there will be a clear value
proposition that drives commercial customers to pay for the Enterprise APIs.

--

Note that this tuning session presentation, too, is marked "PUBLIC", so
presumably there is a non-public version of that file as well.

I find all of this (which I doubt is your decision, so please don't take it
as a criticism of you personally) lamentable. The community is the WMF's
partner in all of this. Why not speak openly to us? We are not paying
customers who need to be wooed, or wowed.

And no – the solution is not to stop publishing the quarterly reviews, or
to delay their publication even more.

Best,
Andreas



On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:11 PM Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> TL;DR: Today the Wikimedia Foundation published a press release[1] about
> the “Wikimedia Enterprise” API project - announcing our first set of
> customers, as well as a new self-signup system. This is a significant
> milestone because it fulfills several promises we have made to ourselves
> and to the movement. There will be a community open meeting on Thursday
> 23 June @ 1700 UTC as documented on our Meta page.[2] The text of this
> email is also published on the talkpage - please centralise any
> comments/feedback there.[3]
>
> Details
>
> I am writing today with details of the latest developments in the
> “Wikimedia Enterprise” API project. This follows the project’s
> community-discussion phase, which began approximately one year ago, focused
> on Meta [and also this wikimedia-l thread]. Then, this past October, we
> issued a press release announcing that we were “open for business” on the
> project’s new site.[4] This wikimedia-l email thread contains the details
> of those previous phases.
>
> Now is the third and final major announcement in this journey from “idea”
> to “reality”. Today’s press release,[1] and associated story on the
> project’s new “news” page,[5] states that:
>
>-
>
>Two well known organisations will be announced as the first customers
>of the project. One is a major social/search corporation [Google], as
>our first official paying customer. This also means that the project is now
>covering its current operating costs. The other is a movement partner and
>nonprofit organization [The Internet Archive] that will receive access at
>no cost.
>-
>
>Anyone will be able to sign up for an account and use/access the
>service [but not at a commercial scale] for free. Furthermore,
>payments for usage above that threshold will be calculated simply and
>publicly based on the number of API requests and gigabytes of data used.
>(Other free access methods for the dataset continue to exist, as documented
>on our Meta FAQ)[6]
>-
>
>The API’s metadata has been expanded to include the beta version of
>what we are calling “credibility signals”. This is already public
>information (such as pageviews, edit-rates, and page-protection status
>changes) packaged within the single data feed to help users make more
>informed decisions about when they should refresh their copy of the
>dataset. (Emphasis on ‘beta’, as this is not available on all versions of
>the product yet.)
>
>
> This announcement is a significant milestone because it fulfills several
> promises we have made to ourselves and to the movement, namely that:
>
>-
>
>We 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Gnangarra,

Surprisingly enough, Covid-19 had little discernible effect on WMF spending
outside the US, which reached its highest ever level in 2020/2021.

Below are the non-US expense totals for the last five fiscal years, per the
Form 990 (Schedule F, usually starts around p. 30) for each[1]:

2016/2017: $11,636,258
2017/2018: $15,191,106
2018/2019: $16,639,727
2019/2020: $19,387,650
2020/2021: $20,076,181

Spending in the global south in 2020/2021 was also the highest it's ever
been, at $3.8 million (based on adding the totals for Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia, Middle East and North Africa, South America, and Central
America and the Caribbean), with the 2019/2020 total the second highest at
$3.0 million.

Andreas

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/


On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:01 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Kaya
>
> "Global South" a term we had discontinued to emphasise as a way to divide
> the community did apply to more than just India.
>
> I really dont think looking at 2020/2021 figures is really fair either by
> yourself or by the fundraising people if that's what they used.  That
> period had a significant downturn in everyone's capacity to do anything.
> Everything the WMF does would be in some way to support volunteers either
> directly or indirectly; whether that is keeping the servers running and
> updating software, providing community support through funding initiatives,
> raising awareness, or simply managing the whole circus.  I'm not supportive
> of playing mind games nor word games with statistics and dollar signs by
> anyone, especially where it pits the value of volunteers against the value
> of staff. We are as a community better than that.
>
> Getting good messaging out there is necessary, we should be moving away
> from those early messages and evolving new messages that reflect where we
> are as a movement now and where we want to be in 10 years.  What we don't
> need is messaging that confuses people. After 20 years we need any
> promotion of the movement to reflect the community as a valuable long term
> respectable, trustworthy, reliable, and neutral partner organisation.
>
>
> Boodarwun
> Gnangarra
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 20:06, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gnangarra and all,
>>
>> I only mentioned how little money went to India in 2020/2021 because of
>> the WMF's recent claim in the Indian Express that "a lot" of the money
>> raised is flowing into the Global South.[1]
>>
>> You raise the messaging used to request donations. Here are six key
>> phrases from the India emails (as linked on Meta[2]) that caught my eye (my
>> emphases):
>>
>> Phrase 1: We *choose not to charge a subscription fee*, but that doesn't
>> mean we don't need support from our readers
>> Phrase 2: kindly consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, *to
>> keep Wikipedia free* and independent.
>>
>> Should the option of charging a subscription fee for "The Free
>> Encyclopedia" even be hinted at in a fundraising email? Bear in mind that
>> the WMF Mission is "to make and keep useful information from its projects
>> available on the internet *free of charge, in perpetuity*." It is only
>> because of this commitment that volunteers are prepared to work for free.
>>
>> Also, isn't there something of a logical contradiction in begging people
>> – especially people in developing countries – for money "to keep Wikipedia
>> free"?
>>
>> Phrase 3: About a year ago, you donated Rs. 313 to *keep Wikipedia
>> online for yourself and millions of people around the world*. Each year,
>> fewer than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work.
>> Phrase 4: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia *remains
>> independent, ad-free, and growing* for years to come
>> Phrase 5: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small
>> donation? It will *keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing* for
>> years to come
>>
>> Wikipedia's independence (also used as a hook on the Wikipedia banners)
>> is safer than ever, if it's to be measured by the WMF's money reserves,
>> which at an estimated $400 million are now greater than they've ever been.
>>
>> Wouldn't we like to see the WMF saying more about what it actually does
>> with the money, rather than falling back on these old stock phrases from
>> yesteryear, about keeping Wikipedia online, or keeping it free? They might
>> have been appropriate fifteen or twenty years ago, when the Foundation was
>> finding its feet financially, but seem very out of step with the current
>> financial realities.
>>
>> Phrase 6:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: what do we do with all this opportunity?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi WSC,

For some time now, the edit window has included the following phrase: "You
agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative
Commons license."

This has no bearing on the "share alike" part of your argument, but as far
as the "attribution" part of CC BY-SA is concerned, there is now much less
to enforce.

Best,
Andreas


On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 4:22 PM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi SJ,
>
> Re " Even as the world moves on to new frontiers and companies race to
> enclose derivatives of our work." Not an easy task when work is licenced
> Share Alike and By Attribution. But yes it is a real threat, and should be
> one that both the WMF and the volunteer community can agree to combat. For
> the WMF unattributed reuse reduces clickthroughs and thereby potential
> donations. For some volunteers not being credited for the work you
> contribute reduces motivation, for others it increases the difficulty of
> avoiding circular referencing. Especially when Wikipedia winds up citing as
> a source an article copied from a page on Wikipedia that has itself been
> deleted.
>
> Attribution and share alike are at times a pain to comply with, and I fear
> that there are those in the movement who see this feature as a bug, and
> that this contributed to the use of CC0 on Wikidata.
>
> But the opportunity is still there. The WMF could employ some legal staff,
> or fund a legal charity, that would strongly encourage reusers to respect
> the CC-BY-SA licence. This would protect the work people have done from
> being  used to derive works that are neither attributed nor shared alike.
> It would protect WMF revenue, maintain volunteer motivation and make it
> difficult to "enclose derivatives of our work.
>
> Employing a few dozen legals and paralegals in a country such as India
> could make a real difference to this, and at least partially address the
> issues others have raised about the lack of WMF spending in developing
> countries.
>
> WSC
>
>>
>>
>> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 17:48:12 -0400
>> From: Samuel Klein 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: what do we do with all this opportunity?
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> > q...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="b566b205e1bfd4c3"
>>
>> We face the paradox 
>> of
>> choice , the lull of peace, and
>> the fog of distributed bureaucracy.
>> ~ With great possibility comes disfocus. (and a few things with focus!)
>> ~ With no clear challenge or adversary, we've become comfortable fussing
>> over small changes... Even as the world moves on to new frontiers and
>> companies race to enclose derivatives of our work. This peace is coming to
>> an end.
>> ~ Our central overhead costs are quite high. So high^ that it seems to
>> baffle everyone involved, each believing the bureaucracy must be caused by
>> some other part of the system, outside of their or their org's control.
>>
>> Our projects are already a global standard for multimodal collaboration at
>> scale, we should embrace that and rise to meet it.  Building some of the
>> world's best free, mulitilingual, accessible tools for is within our
>> remit,
>> experience, and budget.
>>   [Discourse raised a *total *of $20M over its lifetime. we could support
>> +
>> spin out free-knowledge free-software layers like that every year.]
>>
>> Let's practice working together, focusing on a few things each year that
>> can change not only our projects but the world, honoring existing work and
>> aggressively shedding anything we are doing that others are alreay doing
>> almost as well.
>>
>> SJ
>>
>> *^* Up to 10-to-1 in some areas, plus delays of years inserted into
>> otherwise continuous processes.  This ratio can slip into the negative if
>> one includes opportunity cost, or funded work that displaces or drives out
>> comparable voluntary work; or that demands thousands of hours of input for
>> little result.
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Or, maybe, just making Wikimedia a non-obsolete environment. I'm sure
>> the
>> > money can go to that effort.
>> > --
>> > *From:* Felipe Schenone 
>> > *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2022 12:51 PM
>> > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. design staff
>> >
>> > I agree with the diagnosis, but maybe not with the solution. If
>> Wikimedia
>> > is getting "overfunding" and doesn't quite know what to so with it,
>> there's
>> > probably plenty of good things to do. We could start a community
>> process to
>> > decide it, because as you say, reducing funding efforts or saving
>> > indefinitely for the future isn't likely to happen or even desirable,
>> > considering the alternatives.
>> >
>> > Here are some ideas:
>> >
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Gnangarra and all,

I only mentioned how little money went to India in 2020/2021 because of the
WMF's recent claim in the Indian Express that "a lot" of the money raised
is flowing into the Global South.[1]

You raise the messaging used to request donations. Here are six key phrases
from the India emails (as linked on Meta[2]) that caught my eye (my
emphases):

Phrase 1: We *choose not to charge a subscription fee*, but that doesn't
mean we don't need support from our readers
Phrase 2: kindly consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, *to
keep Wikipedia free* and independent.

Should the option of charging a subscription fee for "The Free
Encyclopedia" even be hinted at in a fundraising email? Bear in mind that
the WMF Mission is "to make and keep useful information from its projects
available on the internet *free of charge, in perpetuity*." It is only
because of this commitment that volunteers are prepared to work for free.

Also, isn't there something of a logical contradiction in begging people –
especially people in developing countries – for money "to keep Wikipedia
free"?

Phrase 3: About a year ago, you donated Rs. 313 to *keep Wikipedia online
for yourself and millions of people around the world*. Each year, fewer
than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work.
Phrase 4: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia *remains
independent, ad-free, and growing* for years to come
Phrase 5: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small
donation? It will *keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing* for years
to come

Wikipedia's independence (also used as a hook on the Wikipedia banners) is
safer than ever, if it's to be measured by the WMF's money reserves, which
at an estimated $400 million are now greater than they've ever been.

Wouldn't we like to see the WMF saying more about what it actually does
with the money, rather than falling back on these old stock phrases from
yesteryear, about keeping Wikipedia online, or keeping it free? They might
have been appropriate fifteen or twenty years ago, when the Foundation was
finding its feet financially, but seem very out of step with the current
financial realities.

Phrase 6: 31% of your gift will be used to *support the volunteers* who
share their knowledge with you for free every day.

31% of 2020/2021 donations revenue would have been about $50 million. I've
been told the 31% figure comes from the Annual Report[3] (where it is
called "*Direct support to communities*" and refers to 31% of spending,
which is much less than 31% of revenue). But even so, it is unclear to me
what specifically this amount refers to. It is certainly an order of
magnitude more than the WMF's grants to the community in 2020/2021.

Andreas

[1]
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/raju-narisetti-interview-wikipedia-trust-transparency-7940621/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Indian_email_texts
[3]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/


On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 10:55 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> It doesn't matter where the money goes, everyone benefits and there was a
> period where the WMF was doing a lot of work in India without fundraising
> there. Its all relative Australia was contributing over 2m per year(highest
> per capita of anywhere at the time) yet there was nothing being spent in
> Australia.
>
> The issue is the messaging requesting donations should be honest. At least
> two of those statements are very much questionable, and at the same time we
> shouldn't be sending multiple requests close enough to each other that
> people are complaining which means many others are just sending emails to
> spam which become permanent filters.
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 at 23:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> I am happy to give you the TL;DR version:
>>
>> As best I can make out, the WMF's average salary cost per employee is now
>> about $200,000.
>>
>> More could be said, of course:
>>
>> – The WMF had already exceeded its revenue goals for the 2021/2022 fiscal
>> year by the end of March, bringing in over $150 million in the first three
>> quarters[1] (total expenses last year were $107 million).
>>
>> – Including the endowment, I estimate the WMF now has about $400 million
>> in assets (almost all in cash and investments).
>>
>> – In India, past donors are reporting being inundated with daily WMF
>> emails telling them money is needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent,
>> ad-free and thriving.[1]
>>
>> – Internet hosting costs are $2.4 million per year, and Erik Möller
>> thought in 2013 the Wikimedia mission was sustainable on $10M+/year.
>>
>> – Very little of Wikimedia's money actually goes

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dan,

I am happy to give you the TL;DR version:

As best I can make out, the WMF's average salary cost per employee is now
about $200,000.

More could be said, of course:

– The WMF had already exceeded its revenue goals for the 2021/2022 fiscal
year by the end of March, bringing in over $150 million in the first three
quarters[1] (total expenses last year were $107 million).

– Including the endowment, I estimate the WMF now has about $400 million in
assets (almost all in cash and investments).

– In India, past donors are reporting being inundated with daily WMF emails
telling them money is needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent, ad-free
and thriving.[1]

– Internet hosting costs are $2.4 million per year, and Erik Möller thought
in 2013 the Wikimedia mission was sustainable on $10M+/year.

– Very little of Wikimedia's money actually goes to India (0.64 million in
2020 for all of South Asia, per Form 990).[3]

Andreas


[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Tuning_Session_FY21-22_Q3_Advancement.pdf=9
[2] https://www.facebook.com/deemopahan/posts/10159230509968878
[3]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=29

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 3:46 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 23:25, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> If you've spotted an error in my reasoning or think you can provide a
>> better estimate, please do so and share your working. Many eyes make all
>> bugs shallow.
>>
>
> My feedback is that you've put so many walls of text and numbers on this
> mailing list, that whatever point you're attempting to make is buried
> underneath it.
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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/ASE3NXY474JRM4J57AWAT5JQ6FXS6S4O/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/2DAPOURP64GR6SJAHHCACIR6FMRJBM2J/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org