[Wikimedia-l] Re: Obnoxious fundraisers again: Undismissable notice

[Benjamin Ikuta]

We ought to have an RfC proposing to limit the size of such disruptive banners. 



> On Dec 17, 2022, at 6:16 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 
> If you aren't logged in and you're on mobile, the fundraising notice
> now takes up 1.5 screens, and can't be dismissed - there's only "Maybe
> later", and that demands an email address and can't be dismissed.
> 
> The fundraising department are making the site actually unusable again.
> 
> 
> - d.
> ___
> 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/U4RSQRZLWQWJXLRVA4TN5PMB5LYCJJZV/
> 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/OVOB6TBOFLYRBPBDAOGIAI723WEEOFRH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Hi, can I help? 



> On May 3, 2022, at 8:25 AM, Peter Southwood  
> wrote:
> 
> And who will do all this tedious work? Cheers, Peter
>   <>
> From: g...@tiscali.it  [mailto:g...@tiscali.it 
> ] 
> Sent: 01 May 2022 20:01
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Open proxies and IP blocking
>  
> Another somewhat obvious solution: instead, or before, of blocking, make the 
> edits coming from one of the (too) dangerous IPs go through a reviewal 
> process before getting published; hopefully a very quick one. 
> In theory this would be against the original Wikipedia ideas, but I saw that 
> it's something already practiced in some cases, and anyway blocking seems 
> enormously worse than requiring a review before publication. 
> 
> By the way, I now realized that the current Wikipedia is already very 
> different than what I believed, and it works just because it does *not* 
> really allow anyone to make edits. 
> Before deciding where to go from here I'd suggest you to reflect on what's 
> worse: to forbid anonymity or require reviews; I believe most normal people 
> are more interested in privacy than immediate publication of edits. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> Gabriele 
>  
>  
> 
>  
> Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> 
>  
> ___
> 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/RZ6KIYQKTYQSMFSJV6XVHSAF224Y22DC/
>  
> 
> 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/JYVTLQGLP7TA27PKSSQ2Z4KTUSVHWADF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Also relevant: 
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences

We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry 
that was the key to Wikipedia's early success. 

I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably 
difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to a 
significant, but hard to measure, degree. 



On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted 
> in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default 
> once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half 
> the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit. 
> 
> Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page 
> (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to 
> unnecessary frustration.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bence
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
>  wrote:
> Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa. 
> 
> I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on 
> Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know 
> me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop 
> or a steward with no power. 
> 
> It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, 
> but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this 
> policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how 
> time-consuming it's getting.
> 
> A.M.
> 
> Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni 
>  ha scritto: 
> 
> 
> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with 
> the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from 
> Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
> 
> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during 
> the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
> 
> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several 
> times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain 
> countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the 
> mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would 
> immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean 
> well, but this is not sustainable.
> 
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> 
> 
> בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard ‏ < 
> fdevou...@gmail.com ‏>:
> Hello friends
> 
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being 
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> 
> 
> Long version : 
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the 
> past couple of weeks/months. 
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies 
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all 
> other Wikimedia projects. 
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies 
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While 
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may 
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies 
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the 
> IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the 
> open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way 
> of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local 
> projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
> 
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those 
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy 
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an open 
> proxy
> 
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do 
> not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
> 
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked 
> due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. 
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, 
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. 
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I've always thought this justification fraught with bias. 

Vandalism is highly visible: you can point to it and say it's a problem. And 
it's true! 

But the *lack* of contributions is of course, by nature, invisible. 



On Apr 20, 2022, at 2:33 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni"  
wrote:

> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with 
> the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from 
> Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
> 
> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during 
> the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
> 
> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several 
> times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain 
> countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the 
> mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would 
> immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean 
> well, but this is not sustainable.
> 
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> 
> 
> בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard ‏ < 
> fdevou...@gmail.com ‏>:
> Hello friends
> 
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being 
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> 
> 
> Long version : 
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the 
> past couple of weeks/months. 
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open   Proxies 
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all 
> other Wikimedia projects. 
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies 
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While 
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may 
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies 
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the 
> IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the 
> open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way 
> of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local 
> projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
> 
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those 
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy 
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an open 
> proxy
> 
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do 
> not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
> 
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked 
> due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. 
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, 
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. 
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members   or 
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. 
> 
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular 
> occurence. 
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per   week. 
> Several complaints per week. 
> This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting 
> activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our 
> donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical 
> region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, 
> inclusion blahblahblah). 
> 
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly 
> blocked, it is recommended
> * to privately email stewardswikimedia.org.
> * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't 
> mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy 
> (for Tor usage)).
> * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting 
> User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably 
> the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
> 
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not 
> quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP 
> block exemption list. 
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look 
> at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: (How) can I see the early revision history?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Looks like it's in the WayBack Machine: 

http://web.archive.org/web/20110614170356/http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z
 


But it would still be nice to know that the archives are still maintained by 
Wikimedia though. 



> On Oct 7, 2021, at 8:58 PM, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
> 
> Or even better, if there is a Web accessible version of these early edits.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:57 PM Denny Vrandečić  > wrote:
> I wanted to see the beginning of the article about Jupiter.
> 
> When I go to Jupiter's revision history and click on oldest, I get here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jupiter=prev=history 
>  
> 
> which takes me to the revision as of November 5, 2001:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jupiter=332461507 
> 
> 
> Given that the the article at this point doesn't look like this were the 
> original edition, I expect more history to be in the UseMod archives. 
> 
> I remembered Tim Starling announced a few years ago that he found a few old 
> archives:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia%27s_oldest_articles 
> 
> 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/063088.html 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that link has gone stale.
> 
> Does anyone know where these archives are?
> 
> Cheers,
> Denny
> ___
> 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/CSR5ZZBYW7YIIHOL3T3NVBS6AOPO2MVD/
> 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/MH76IPSGYLNJS6U5BWDVOGVPYWIHMCEC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Code of Conduct

[Benjamin Ikuta]

The WMF continues its steady departure from the community. 

It is quite sad to see. 


> On Feb 2, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Yair Rand  wrote:
> 
> The community has not approved the WMF's UCoC. It is not a Wikimedia policy, 
> it is not binding, it has no authority. The WMF does not control the 
> Wikimedia projects, and has no jurisdiction in this area.
> 
> The community rejected this over and over again. It is harmful that the Board 
> is pretending they can do this unilaterally.
> 
> -- Yair Rand
> 
> ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 2 בפבר׳ 2021 ב-6:59 מאת ‪María Sefidari‬‏ 
> <‪ma...@wikimedia.org ‬‏>:‬
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I’m pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees has unanimously approved a 
> Universal Code of Conduct for the Wikimedia projects and movement.[1]  A 
> Universal Code of Conduct was one of the final recommendations of the 
> Movement Strategy 2030 process - a multi-year, participatory community effort 
> to define the future of our movement. The final Universal Code of Conduct 
> seeks to address disparities in conduct policies across our hundreds of 
> projects and communities, by creating a binding minimum set of standards for 
> conduct on the Wikimedia projects that directly address many of the 
> challenges that contributors face.
> 
> The Board is deeply grateful to the communities who have grappled with these 
> challenging topics. Over the past six months, communities around the world 
> have participated in conversations and consultations to help build this code 
> collectively, including local discussions in 19 languages, surveys, 
> discussions on Meta, and policy drafting by a committee of volunteers and 
> staff. The document presented to us reflects a significant investment of time 
> and effort by many of you, and especially by the joint staff/volunteer 
> committee who created the base draft after reviewing input collected from 
> community outreach efforts. We also appreciate the dedication of the 
> Foundation, and its Trust & Safety policy team, in getting us to this phase.
> 
> This was the first phase of our Universal Code of Conduct - from here, the 
> Trust & Safety team will begin consultations on how best to enforce this 
> code. In the coming weeks, they will follow-up with more instructions on how 
> you can participate in discussions around enforcing the new code. Over the 
> next few months, they will be facilitating consultation discussions in many 
> local languages, with our affiliates, and on Meta to support a new 
> volunteer/staff committee in drafting enforcement pathways. For more 
> information on the process, timeline, and how to participate in this next 
> phase, please review the Universal Code of Conduct page on Meta.[2]
> 
> The Universal Code of Conduct represents an essential step towards our vision 
> of a world in which all people can participate in the sum of all knowledge. 
> Together, we have built something extraordinary. Today, we celebrate this 
> milestone in making our movement a safer space for contribution for all. 
> 
> On behalf of the Board of Trustees,
> 
> María Sefidari
> Board Chair
> 
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review 
>  
> 
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 
>  and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 
> 
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 
> , 
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New feature from Community Tech: Watchlist Expiry

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thanks, I've always wanted this. 



> On Dec 1, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Ilana Fried  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> I'm very excited to announce a new feature created by the Community Tech[1] 
> team: Watchlist Expiry. With this feature, you can optionally select to watch 
> a page for a temporary period of time. This feature is now available on all 
> wikis. It was developed in response to the #7 request[2] in the 2019 
> Community Wishlist Survey[3]. To learn more, you can check out the 
> Help:Watchlist_Expiry[4] page on Mediawiki.org, as well as the project 
> page[5]. Since this is a new feature, we invite you to share your feedback. 
> Thank you, and we look forward to checking out your feedback on the project 
> talk page![6]
> Thank you!
> Ilana Fried
> Product Manager, Community Tech
> [1]. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech 
> 
> [2]. 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Watchlists/Watchlist_item_expiration
>  
> 
> [3]. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019 
> 
> [4]. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Watchlist_expiry 
> 
> [5]. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Watchlist_Expiry 
> 
> [6]. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Watchlist_Expiry 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thanks for the reply. 

I took a look at it and found it terribly vague. 

Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify 
whatever judgement is to be made. 

I am no more enlightened. 



> On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> What I want to read : comments on the UCoC.
> What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative 
> or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of 
> one or more of the subscribers of this list.
> 
> I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to 
> defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or 
> current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, 
> instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what 
> seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of 
> Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
> 
> Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
> Thank you…
> 
> Roger / Alphos
> 
> 
>> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please, enlighten me.
>> 
>> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
>> see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
>> a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against
>> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
>> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
>> page where the main discussion is happening.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>>>> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
>>>> :
>>>>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
>>> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
>>>> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
>>>> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Ziko
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Please, enlighten me. 



On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> :
>> 
>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have 
>> a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> 
> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Am I reading this correctly? 

You were moderated for calling the UCoC flatulence? 

Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a 
deeply flawed understanding of civility? 



On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the
> ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
>> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
>> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
>> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
>> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
>> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
>> glad to see this moving forward.
>> 
>> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about
>> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
>> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we
>> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share
>> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
>> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
>> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
>> discussion about the UCoC.
>> 
>> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
>> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on
>> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Jackie
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Dan,
>>> 
>>> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
>> and
>>> more useful on the Draft talk page.
>>> 
>>> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
>> proceedings",
>>> you probably expected a different model where different language
>>> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
>>> UCoC.
>>> 
>>> The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and
>> if
>>> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
>>> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
>>> support the drafting committee at this stage.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Isaac
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>>> 
 I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
>>> get a
 $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
>> opinion
>>> on
 proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
>>> is
 about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
>>> flatulence
 to itself.
 
 On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
>> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
>>> WMF
> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> 
> I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
>>> that
> looks like an "imposition"
> 
> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
>>> policy
 or
> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
 Wikimedia
> project.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Isaac
> 
> 
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
 Doubly
>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
>> arbitrarily
>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
>>> taken
> over
>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
>>> process
> when
>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
>> one.
>> 
>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
>> to
 use
>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
>> pear...@wikimedia.org
 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>> 
>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
>>> ,
>> which
 the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
>> year
>>> <
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I agree, the lack of transparency is quite concerning, as is the use of AWS. 

I sure hope we're not going to be producing closed source code! 



On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.
> 
> I think I need to clarify something: I'm not against asking the big corps
> to pay. If they are using a significant amount of our computational
> resources (=donors money) to make even more money, they should pay. And
> thank you for improving the movement's financial security. I don't oppose
> the general idea.
> 
> That being said, what worries me are the details:
> * WMF is creating a company (LLC) and contracts that company, this means
> less transparency. This is the first time I think in the history of the
> foundation AFAIK that WMF is creating a company for legal reasons (I'm
> sorry if I missed anything).
> * That company is contracting another company for engineering work (even
> less transparency). We have lots of engineering resources at WMF.
> * As the result, for the first time, code produced by donors money is
> closed source and inaccessible to public (or at least I couldn't find the
> code linked anywhere)
> * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
> * There wasn't a period for giving feedback for example about the choice of
> cloud provider or anything, suddenly it came out ready. The rumors about it
> have been going around for months.
> * This has not been communicated properly to the community, I find this
> lack of communication and transparency concerning and insulting.
> 
> Hope what I'm saying here makes sense.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>> I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when they
>> deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
>> consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the costs
>> of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any fee
>> for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
>> I've seen thus far accommodates that.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the API
>>> millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use obligate
>> us
>>> (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It is
>>> part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
>>> chosen in 2017.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your understanding,
>>> 
>>> Ad Huikeshoven
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hello,
 Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
>>> someone
 from WMF starting with:
 "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
>>> for
 wikidata as part of the paid API project."
 
 I have so many questions:
 - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
>>> our
 API? Now are we selling our dumps?
 - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
>>> dark?
 - Does the board know and approve it?
 - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
 transparency?
 - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
 bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
 feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
 Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host this
>>> on
 Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
 - Why is the community not consulted about this?
 
 Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me for
>>> my
 ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
 revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
>>> community
 wouldn't be too bad.
 
 [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
 
 Best
 --
 Amir (he/him)
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emergency moderation ended

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thanks, I appreciate the work you do. 



On Jun 23, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Just a handful of further responses on the racism thread.
> 
> Specifically in case anyone wonders, no messages regarding the branding
> project were suppressed.
> 
>   A.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 00:54 Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> For the sake of transparency, how many messages were blocked?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 23, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Wikimedians,
>>> 
>>> We have ended the emergency moderation of the mailing list
>>> 
>>> We did our best to process the moderation queue at least several times a
>>> day, but are happy to return the list to regular operation.
>>> 
>>>   Asaf
>>>   in behalf of the list admins
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emergency moderation ended

[Benjamin Ikuta]

For the sake of transparency, how many messages were blocked? 



On Jun 23, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
> 
> We have ended the emergency moderation of the mailing list
> 
> We did our best to process the moderation queue at least several times a
> day, but are happy to return the list to regular operation.
> 
>Asaf
>in behalf of the list admins
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Commons

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons 
because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that 
of Wikipedia. 

Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't 
contribute more broadly? 

~Benjamin 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Countless editors, myself included, have complained about this over the years. 

Regarding the WMF's response, actions speak louder than words. 



On May 4, 2020, at 7:55 AM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
> 
> /jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Face recognition

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thanks for that. 

Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not directly 
state, that AI training is a derivative work; could you clarify that? 



On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Ryan Merkley  wrote:

> [My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official position 
> from WMF]
> 
> The NBC story linked below come out about a year ago. Around the same time, 
> when I was CEO at Creative Commons, we published a statement and updated FAQs 
> that attempted to respond to questions being asked about permitted uses and 
> attribution related to the licenses.
> 
> CC’s statement (March 2019) is here: 
> https://creativecommons.org/2019/03/13/statement-on-shared-images-in-facial-recognition-ai/
>  
> 
> The FAQs are here: 
> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#artificial-intelligence-and-cc-licenses 
> 
> 
> r.
> 
> _
> 
> Ryan Merkley (he/him)
> Chief of Staff, Wikimedia Foundation 
> 
> rmerk...@wikimedia.org 
> @ryanmerkley 
> +1 416 802 0662
> 
>> On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:14 PM, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>> 
>> There are several reports of face recognition going mainstream, often
>> in less than optimum circumstances, and often violating copyright and
>> licenses
>> 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facial-recognition-s-dirty-little-secret-millions-online-photos-scraped-n981921
>> https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/01/diversity-in-faces/
>> 
>> In my opinion building a model for face recognition is a derived work,
>> and as such must credit the photographers. That pose a real problem
>> when the photographers counts in the millions and billions. Even a 1px
>> fine print would be troublesome!
>> 
>> What is the official stance on this? Is it a copyright infringement or
>> not, does the license(s) cover the case or not?
>> 
>> John Erling Blad
>> /jeblad
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Donating to Wikipedia

[Benjamin Ikuta]

My dad recently said to me: 

"I was solitated by them after looking something up.  I thought it strange the 
way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be 
shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."

Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the wrong 
impression from the marketing messaging? 

I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly 
antithetical to our values to be deceptive. 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TLS

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I use a second generation iPod Touch, which is incapable updating any further. 



On Nov 24, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Alex Monk  wrote:

> Sounds like you may have been affected by
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T238038 which would've sent you to a page
> like https://meta.wikimedia.org/sec-warning
> Why are you attempting to connect using old versions of TLS?
> 
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 20:30, Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something?
>> 
>> I noticed I couldn't connect the other day, but now it seems I can again.
>> 
>> For what it's worth, I strongly oppose any measure that makes Wikimedia
>> projects less accessible.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] TLS

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something? 

I noticed I couldn't connect the other day, but now it seems I can again. 

For what it's worth, I strongly oppose any measure that makes Wikimedia 
projects less accessible. 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Community Wishlist Survey: Submit Your Proposals

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I would also like to see an answer to this. 


On Oct 23, 2019, at 4:59 AM, AntiCompositeNumber 
 wrote:

> Furthermore, requests that "generally target all wikis" are also now
> excluded. Does that mean that requests relating to the work of stewards and
> global sysops, who do much of the work on small wikis, are also excluded?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:53 AntiCompositeNumber <
> anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The additional exclusion of Commons and Wikidata was not previously
>> announced. In fact, the previous statement excluding Wikipedias explicitly
>> stated that wishlist items from Commons and Wikidata would still be
>> accepted.
>> 
>> Could you explain the reason for this change and why it wasn't
>> communicated earlier?
>> 
>> Regards
>> AntiComposite
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 18:08 Ilana Fried  wrote:
>> 
>>> The 2020 Community Wishlist Survey
>>>  is now
>>> open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the
>>> Community
>>> Tech  team should work on
>>> over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the
>>> deadline on November 11, or comment on other proposals to help make them
>>> better. To submit proposals, you can check out the guidelines on the
>>> survey
>>> page
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020#Guidelines
 .
>>> This year, we’ll only be accepting wishes for non-Wikipedia content
>>> projects with no dedicated teams (i.e., Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote,
>>> Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews). To learn
>>> more about the new format, we invite you to visit the survey page
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020#New_format_for_2020_Survey
 .
>>> Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia site and system outages

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I am also curious about this. 



> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:55 PM, RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> 
> Any idea of when an incident report may come out?
> 
> RhinosF1
> Wikimedia User & Incident Reporter
> 
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Heather Walls  wrote:
> 
>> Hello again,
>> 
>> As a follow-up to my last note on the September 6th DDoS attack, we wanted
>> to provide you with an update. There have been no further attacks in the
>> last week and our sites are now running normally. Our SRE team is
>> continuing to monitor the situation.
>> 
>> Based on what we learned in this attack, our security and engineering teams
>> are researching and putting together plans for more protection of our
>> infrastructure to address any potential attacks in the future.
>> 
>> We appreciate everyone’s support, particularly the folks on the SRE team,
>> in helping to restore access.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Heather
>> 
>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 4:25 PM Heather Walls  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> 
>>> By now you are likely aware that the Wikimedia sites suffered from a
>>> relatively significant botnet driven DDOS attack on September 6th, taking
>>> them offline in several countries throughout the day. This primarily
>>> affected Wikipedia access in Europe and the Middle East. We posted a
>> short
>>> update of the event on our website.[1]
>>> 
>>> I would like to thank everyone who stepped up to support the restoration
>>> of our projects, including the fast reporting of community members
>>> throughout the world and our security and engineering teams who worked
>> long
>>> hours to address many complex issues surrounding the attack and our
>>> response—the Site Reliability Engineering team in particular.
>>> 
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation leadership team is proud to work with such
>>> talented and dedicated staff and supporters.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Heather
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1.
>>> 
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/07/malicious-attack-on-wikipedia-what-we-know-and-what-were-doing/
>>> 
>>> "Today, Wikipedia was hit with a malicious attack that has taken it
>>> offline in several countries for intermittent periods. The attack is
>>> ongoing and our Site Reliability Engineering team is working hard to stop
>>> it and restore access to the site.
>>> 
>>> As one of the world’s most popular sites, Wikipedia sometimes attracts
>>> “bad faith” actors. Along with the rest of the web, we operate in an
>>> increasingly sophisticated and complex environment where threats are
>>> continuously evolving. Because of this, the Wikimedia communities and
>>> Wikimedia Foundation have created dedicated systems and staff to
>> regularly
>>> monitor and address risks. If a problem occurs, we learn, we improve, and
>>> we prepare to be better for next time.
>>> 
>>> We condemn these sorts of attacks. They’re not just about taking
>> Wikipedia
>>> offline. Takedown attacks threaten everyone’s fundamental rights to
>> freely
>>> access and share information. We in the Wikimedia movement and Foundation
>>> are committed to protecting these rights for everyone.
>>> 
>>> Right now, we’re continuing to work to restore access wherever you might
>>> be reading Wikipedia in the world. We’ll keep you posted."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Heather Walls (she/her)
>>> 
>>> Chief Creative Officer
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Heather Walls (she/her)
>> 
>> Chief Creative Officer
>> 
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Community Tech: New Format for 2020 Wishlist Survey

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thank you for writing this; I completely agree. 

I've long thought the WMF should put more resources into community wishes, not 
less. 

I do hope this will be reconsidered. 

Perhaps there could be more wishes granted to non-Wikimedia projects, while 
maintaining the same number of wishes for Wikipedia? 



> On Oct 4, 2019, at 4:43 PM, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:
> 
> Ilana, restricting wishlist to non-Wikipedia this year is a very sad news.
> 
> For many years, wishlist survey was the best way for the community to talk
> back to the foundation, and to try to influence its direction. WMF mostly
> ignored these wishes, yet it was still a place to express, discuss,
> aggregate and vote on what community needed. Big thank-you is due to the
> tiny community tech team that tackled the top 10 items, but that's just ~3%
> of the foundation's employees.
> 
> WMF has been steadily separating itself from the community and loosing
> credibility as a guiding force.  Take a look at the last election -- almost
> every candidate has said "no" to the question if WMF is capable of
> deciding/delivering on the direction [1].  In **every** single conversation
> I had with the community members, people expressed doubts with the movement
> strategy project, in some cases even treating it as a joke.
> 
> This is a huge problem, and restricting wishlist kills the last effective
> feedback mechanism community had.  Now WMF is fully in control of itself,
> with nearly no checks & balances from the people who created it.
> 
> I still believe that if WMF makes it a priority to align most of its
> quarterly/yearly goals with the community wishlist (not just top 10
> positions), we could return to the effective community-governance.
> Otherwise WMF is risking to mirror Red Cross Haiti story [2] -- hundreds of
> millions of $$ donated, and very few buildings actually built.
> 
> With great respect to all the people who made Wikis what they are today,
> --[[User:Yurik]]
> 
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Questions#Do_you_believe_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_in_its_present_form_is_the_right_vehicle_for_the_delivery_of_the_strategic_direction?_If_so_why,_and_if_not,_what_might_replace_it?
> 
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross#Disaster_preparedness_and_response
> 
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:18 PM Ilana Fried  wrote:
> 
>> Hello, everyone!
>> 
>> My name is Ilana, and I'm the product manager for the Community Tech team.
>> We’re excited to share an update on the Community Tech 2020 Wishlist Survey
>> . This
>> will
>> be our fifth annual Community Wishlist Survey, and for this year, we’ve
>> decided to take a different approach. In the past, we've invited people to
>> write proposals for any features or fixes that they'd like to see, and the
>> Community Tech team has addressed the top ten wishes with the most support
>> votes. This year, we're just going to focus on the *non-Wikipedia content
>> projects* (i.e. Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Commons, Wikisource,
>> Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews), and we're
>> only going to address the top five wishes from this survey. This is a big
>> departure from the typical process. In the following year (2021), we’ll
>> probably return to the traditional structure.
>> 
>> So, why this change? We’ve been following the same format for years — and,
>> generally, it has lots of benefits. We build great tools, provide useful
>> improvements, and have an impact on diverse communities. However, the
>> nature of the format tends to prioritize the largest project (Wikipedia).
>> This makes it harder to serve smaller projects, and many of their wishes
>> never make it onto the wishlist. As a community-focused team, we want to
>> support *all* projects. Thus, for 2020, we want to shine a light on
>> non-Wikipedia projects.
>> 
>> Furthermore, we’ll be accepting five wishes. Over the years, we’ve taken on
>> larger wishes (like Global Preferences
>>  or Who
>> Wrote That
>> ),
>> which are awesome projects. At the same time, they tend to be lengthy
>> endeavors, requiring extra time for research and development. When we
>> looked at the 2019 wishlist, there were still many unresolved wishes.
>> Meanwhile, we wanted to make room for the new 2020 wishes. For this reason,
>> we’ve decided to take on a shortened list, so we can address as many wishes
>> (new and remaining 2019 wishes
>> )
>> as possible.
>> 
>> Overall, we look forward to this year’s survey. We worked with lots of
>> folks (engineering, product management, and others) to think about how we
>> could support underserved projects, all while preserving the dynamic and
>> open nature of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Could we have a formal RfC already, please? 



> On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be
> taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in
> this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push
> discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and
> in public.
> 
> Todd
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Diane,
>> 
>> If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the
>> "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in
>> her messages?
>> I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion
>> with the community takes place.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Paulo
>> 
>> 
>> Diane Ranville  escreveu no dia sexta,
>> 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
>> 
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> 
>>> Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
>>> soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
>>> being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
>>> If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
>> suggest
>>> using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Diane
>>> (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
>>> 
>>> <
>>> 
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
 
>>> Garanti
>>> sans virus. www.avast.com
>>> <
>>> 
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
 
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
 
 On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett 
 wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
 wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
>> geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
>>> 
 the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
 recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
>>> 
>>> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
>>> one
>>> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
 Wikimedia
>>> community.
>>> 
>> 
>> That step is not mentioned at
>> 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
 ?
> 
> But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
 ?
> 
> In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> 
> perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> 
>   "[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
>> will
>then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
>structures for approval or further consultation."
> 
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 
 
 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward. 



> On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> 
> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> 
> Something along the lines of:
> "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> 
> With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> spent money had impact and "value".
> 
> P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fae
> 
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville  
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I agree with Pine.
>> There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
>> proposition.
>> I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is
>> difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
>> sometimes necessary).
>> Have other options even been considered?
>> 
>> -speaking in my own name here-
>> 
>> Diane
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Zack,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the report on Meta.
>>> 
>>> I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
>>> support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
>>> movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
>>> according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
>>> the rebranding proposal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable
>>> support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
>>> considerable opposition?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
>>> measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
>>> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
>>> three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
>>> measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC,
>>> I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> 
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
>>> 
 *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for
 movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
>>> for
 updates on Meta-Wiki.
 
 
 Hello all,
 
 After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates,
 several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased
 to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
>>> strategy
 [1].
 
 From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
 
   1.
 
   Reducing confusion
   2.
 
   Protecting reputation
   3.
 
   Supporting sister projects
   4.
 
   Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
   5.
 
   Supporting movement growth
   6.
 
   The process of change
 
 Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
 examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
>>> of
 how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
 
 The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
>>> wide
 movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of
 health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
 which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
>>> tension
 with each other.
 
 Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Sorry, by "you" I meant the board. 

It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community. 



> On Aug 24, 2019, at 1:29 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> 
> @ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
> community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
> community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
> working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
> requires more discussion and some adjustments.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
>> such a massive way.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
>>> position at this point in time.
>>> 
>>> J
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> James
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
>> Board's
>>>> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
>>>> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>>>> 
>>>> Jeff
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>>>>> 
>>>>> James
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Paulo,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
>> community
>>>>>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
>>>> just
>>>>>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
>>>>> expressed
>>>>>> the opinion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> a much less dramatic change.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>>>>>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
>>>> this
>>>>>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
>>>> take a
>>>>>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
>>>> to
>>>>>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>>>>> when
>>>>>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
>> will
>>>>>> return when the time is right.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>>>>>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
>>>>>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
>>>>> 8and
>>>>>>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
>>>>> December.
>>>>>>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
>>>> only
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
>>>>>>> process of implementation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>>>>>> Wikimedia
>>>>>>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> way till implementation phase.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Paulo
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
>>>>>>> 22/08/2019
>>>>>>> à(s) 11:58:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such 
a massive way. 



On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> position at this point in time.
> 
> J
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> 
>> James
>> 
>> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
>> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
>> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Paulo,
 
 You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
 does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
>> just
 five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
>>> expressed
 the opinion
 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
 over
 a much less dramatic change.
 
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
 acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
>> this
 next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
>> take a
 wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
>> to
 let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>>> when
 needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
 return when the time is right.
 
 I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
 
 Jeff
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
 paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
>>> 8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
>>> December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
>> only
>>> be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> process of implementation.
> 
> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
 Wikimedia
> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
>>> the
> way till implementation phase.
> 
> Paulo
> 
> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> 22/08/2019
> à(s) 11:58:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
>>> much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
>> building
 our
>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
>> clarifications.
>> 
>> DRAFTS
>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
>> shared
 are
>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
 working
>> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
>>> Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
>>> development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
>>> few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
 everyone a
>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
 multiple
>> progress levels.
>> 
>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
 recommendation
> to
>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
 through
> a
>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> reasoning
>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
 ways
> to
>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
>> look
 into
>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
>> the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
>>> instead
 of
>> rushing to a quick fix.
>> 
>> INTEGRATION
>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
>>> and
> via
>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
 iteration
> of
>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis
>> for
>> harmonization across working groups.
>> 
>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some
>> of
 it
>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles
>> or
>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or
 already
>> addressing implementation. Structural input will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Benjamin Ikuta]

As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this. 

See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism



On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
> 
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
> 
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
> 
> Todd
> 
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers 
> wrote:
> 
>> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
>> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
>> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>> 
>> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
>> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
>> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
>> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
>> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
>> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
>> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
>> z"
>> 
>> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
>> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
>> for, among other things:
>> 
>> 
>>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>>   to blocks.
>>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>> 
>> 
>> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
>> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
>> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
>> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
>> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
>> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
>> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
>> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>> 
>> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
>> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
>> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
>> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
>> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
>> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
>> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
>> nuanced and diplomatic.
>> 
>> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
>> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
>> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
>> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
>> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
>> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
>> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
>> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
>> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
>> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
>> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
>> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
>> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
 Hoi,
 I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
 find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
>>> the
 community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
 finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On wiki versus off wiki - it may not be that simple

[Benjamin Ikuta]

It would do a great deal to clear the air of speculation if they would at least 
confirm they're not accusing Fram of off wiki harassment. 



On Jun 30, 2019, at 8:20 AM, Stephen Philbrick  
wrote:

> Please keep in mind the plausible scenario that one or more people
> contacted T & S, and asserted that editor X is extremely distressed about
> harassment arriving from on wiki edits. Fram can be literally telling the
> truth when they say that they are unaware of any off wiki commincations,
> while T Is in possession of information that cannot simply be summarized
> as on wiki or off wiki. It may well be off wiki real life observations but
> not related to any off wiki communications involving Fram.
> 
> Phil
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, 
and everything he was warned about was onwiki? 

And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so? 



On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez  wrote:

> I do.
> 
> It just doesn’t make any sense.  His account is either wrong or leaving out
> much of the truth.
> 
> I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take,
> how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
> 
> So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a
> large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> 
> Occam’s razor.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
>> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
>> 
>> You really think he's just outright lying?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> 
>>> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
>>> let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
>>> considered you to be.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
>>>> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
>> the
>>>> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
>> or
>>>> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
>>>> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
>> what
>>>> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>>>> 
>>>> Todd
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
>>>>> doing only what you describe?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
>> writing
>>>>>> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
>> Harassment!
>>>>>> Bad!"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
>>>>> SOURCES
>>>>>> PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
>> anyway.
>>>>>> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
>> her
>>>>>> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
>>>>> "harassment"
>>>>>> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
>> policies.
>>>>>> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
>>>>> only
>>>>>> after she has them in hand.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Todd
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
>>>>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
>> then
>>>>>>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
>>>>>>>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
>>>>> death
>>>>>>>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
>>>>>>>> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
>>>>>>>> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
>>>>> goe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say 
even so much as a, "That's not accurate."? 

You really think he's just outright lying? 



On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> considered you to be.
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
>> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
>> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
>> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
>> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
>> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>> 
>>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
>>> doing only what you describe?
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
 
 The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
 garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
 Bad!"
 
 If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
>>> SOURCES
 PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
 The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
 articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
>>> "harassment"
 rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
 Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
>>> only
 after she has them in hand.
 
 Todd
 
 On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
>>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> 
>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>> 
>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
>>> death
>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
>> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
>>> and
>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
>>> criminal
>> stuff.
>> 
>> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
>> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
>>> goes
>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
>> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
>> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
>>> then
>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
>> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
>> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>> 
>> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
>> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
>> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
>> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
>> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
>> Wikimedia projects.
>> 
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> 
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
>> consequences.
>>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
>>> what? The
>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
>>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
>>> ballistic
>> when
>>> consequences happen.
>>> 
>>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
>>> that
>> did
>>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
>>> is
>> like
>>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
>>> clearly
>> overly
>>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Wikimedia Space: A space for movement news and conversations

[Benjamin Ikuta]

My two cents: I'd rather have such discussions on wiki. 

Old browsers are more compatible with the wiki website, and it'd be more 
convenient and accessible otherwise. 



On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Maria Cruz  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Engagement department is
>> launching Wikimedia Space *[1]*, a platform for movement *[2]* organizers,
>> affiliates, contributors, partners, and the Foundation to share news,
>> questions, and conversations.
>> 
>> Learning from others has been the bedrock for development and growth in our
>> movement. With this platform, we want to promote these sorts of enriching
>> exchanges by welcoming people from every background to build strong and
>> diverse communities, breaking down the barriers for entry to our movement,
>> and focusing our efforts on facilitating collaboration, including from
>> communities that are new to our movement.
>> 
>> Wikimedia Space is a single place for collaboration, comprising Blog *[1]*
>> and Discuss *[3]* hubs. The Blog section provides a movement-wide platform
>> for project updates, recent events, and shared learnings. We have designed
>> editorial guidelines that allow everyone to share their news with others.
>> Wikimedia Space also allows anybody to add an event, which can be
>> discovered in a calendar *[4]* or a map *[5] *of the movement. We want this
>> new space to be safe and welcoming, especially for newcomers, and this is
>> why it is governed by a code of conduct *[6]*, and relies on active
>> community moderation.
>> 
>> Wikimedia Space is currently a prototype, built on WordPress *[7]* and
>> Discourse *[8]*. While at present it only operates in English, it will
>> evolve to include multiple languages in the near future. This project is
>> only possible with your participation. Spread the news and join Wikimedia
>> Space *[9]*!
>> 
>> Read more about the features you’ll find on our blog post. We have also
>> published posts on how to make this space yours, so it can best serve your
>> needs. You can find all the documentation for this project on its page on
>> Meta.
>> 
>> See you at Wikimedia Space!
>> 
>> 
>> *María Cruz * \\  Communications and Outreach Manager, Community Engagement
>> \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>> mc...@wikimedia.org  |  Twitter:  @marianarra_
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://space.wmflabs.org
>> 
>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement
>> 
>> [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/
>> 
>> [4] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/calendar
>> 
>> [5] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
>> 
>> [6] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/guidelines
>> 
>> [7] https://wordpress.org/
>> 
>> [8] https://discourse.org/
>> [9] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/how-to-join-wikimedia-space/113
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> Does this mean we should plan to stop using https://outreach.wikimedia.org?
> 
> The two appear to serve the same purpose and are governed by the same
> codes of conduct.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fae
> -- 
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thanks for this. 

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and lack of 
transparency. 



On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224  wrote:

> Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> 
> Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they weren't 
> consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a concern 
> to the office. [1]
> 
> The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local communities 
> consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the 
> Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to 
> Arbcom privately.
> 
> The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the Arbcom 
> noticeboards.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
>  
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> 
> [1] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
>  
> 
> [2] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> 
> Techman224
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: George Herbert 
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
>> To: English Wikipedia 
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
>> 
>> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English Wikipedia
>> user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
>> reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
>> Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal policy and
>> procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
>> circumstances preclude public comments.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
>> 
>> Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making private
>> inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to the
>> oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
>> 
>> There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into "Ok,
>> responsible people following up".
>> 
>> I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office actions,
>> having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself at
>> times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most unusual but
>> not unheard of.
>> 
>> I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
>> comment, no reply as yet.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -george william herbert
>> george.herb...@gmail.com
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Do you think it might be a common misconception, perhaps? 



On May 20, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta  
wrote:

> The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and
> Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe
> we as a Movement should have some sort of plan or strategy to fight that -
> and never indulge in accepting NC as a valid license for the Wikimedia
> projects, as IMO it really hinders our mission of a free and open project.
> 
> Paulo
> 
> Yury Bulka  escreveu no dia segunda,
> 20/05/2019 à(s) 07:28:
> 
>>> From: Mister Thrapostibongles 
>>> 
>>> I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  Firstly, this isn't the right
>> venue
>>> for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing,
>>> especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that
>> permit
>>> commercial reuse.
>> In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but
>> let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing
>> policy of Wikimedia projects.
>> 
>> I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the
>> use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial
>> clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial
>> clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and
>> rights to go to court over your use of the work.
>> 
>>> And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner
>>> from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they
>> own:
>>> so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
>> Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for
>> instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Yury.
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you and farewell

[Benjamin Ikuta]

What did you learn about epistemology? 




On May 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Sati Houston  wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> After almost 5 years at WMF, I’ve decided to move on from the Foundation.
> My last day will be June 4th.
> 
> These last few years have been an unexpected journey. When Anasuya Senguta
> and Jessie Wild recruited me in 2014, I didn't know what awaited me. I
> didn't know that I could learn so much about epistemology, power,
> resilience, and community in such a short period of time. I couldn't know
> how indelibly I would change - in my perspectives, my approaches, and my
> beliefs.
> 
> But I have learned *so much*. From the countless conversations I've had and
> observed. From working with hundreds of staff and volunteers to understand
> different community needs
> [1], build new
> tools [2], reflect
> [3]
> on
> current programs, understand the breadth and depth of our gaps
> [4], understand
> our longer-term impact [5],
> and find the path forward.
> 
> And because we are Wikimedia, it's unsurprising that I leave having learned
> the limits of my own knowledge, the power of collective discourse
> [6], and the weight of my own
> power and privilege in seeing systemic, cultural change happen.
> 
> This journey honestly wasn’t an easy ride. I laughed and cried, triumphed
> and despaired, argued and made up; I felt supported and isolated, powerful
> and powerless. I saw the tremendous beauty that Wikimedia creates and the
> long road still to come.
> 
> But despite the rough ride, when I think back on my time here I will always
> treasure the kaleidoscope of small moments that brought me joy: grammar
> advice from Asaf, introducing Felix to Korean food, learning that many of
> you are artists or musicians or poets, learning wikitext (yes, I actually
> enjoyed that), dancing until my feet hurt, learning to love karaoke,
> impromptu lunches and dinners, and many *many* walks and virtual coffee
> chats.
> 
> So thank you all for sharing your wisdom, humor, and time with me. Thank
> you Wikimedia for being a place that I could grow and learn. I will still
> be around on the interwebs (and in San Francisco if you ever are in town),
> and look forward to watching how you grow.
> 
> For now, I leave you with this quote:
> 
> "In a complex, technological world, most of us are experts at something.
> More importantly, being a true expert means having a healthy dose of
> humility. If you have really studied something and really gone deep into
> how it works, then you should come away knowing how much you don't know. *In
> a sense, that is the real definition of an expert — knowing the limits of
> one's own knowledge.*" - Adam Frank, National Public Radio [7]
> 
> With much love,
> Sati
> 
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development
> [2] https://eventmetrics.wmflabs.org/
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Strategy/Wikimedia_Foundation_grantmaking_review/Intro
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_equity_report_2018
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Impact
> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking
> [7]
> https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/04/07/522992390/why-expertise-matters
> 
> -- 
> 
> Sati Houston
> Senior Strategist, Grants
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Well, there's always good ol' Jimbo's talk page. 



On May 15, 2019, at 6:25 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
> participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have
> any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project? They often
> say so, but in practice I do not see any. This list used to be the one, but
> it does not carry out this function. The corresponding part of Meta is
> dead, questions never get answered. Some (very few, as far as I can tell),
> WMF staff members are also active as volunteers, but they do not serve as
> liasons between WMF and communities, at least I do not see any indication
> that they would welcome these questions asked as their talk pages. Every
> time I see a WMF staffer on one of the projects I am active in, this is a
> one-way communication mode, not a dialogue.
> 
> Well, may be WMF does not need these channels, but then I do not understand
> why they continue claiming they are listening to the community. In my
> experience, this is not the case.
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:16 PM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
> 
>> I do not think we should assign blame to those who left this list during
>> and because of the periods of toxicity, and who are disinclined to
>> participate here because of the memories of that and a continued perceived
>> unhealthiness in the tone. Their decision to leave was a valid one.
>> 
>> Not respecting that choice I suspect would just reaffirm their suspicions
>> and reinforces the lack of desire to commit here. A significantly more
>> positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance taken.
>> Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>> 
>>> Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is
>>> carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list
>>> co-administrator:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
 suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
 mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
 movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And
>> yet
 it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
 constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because
>>> this
 list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
 written with such overt passive aggression.
 
 I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,
>> the
 unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most
>> active
 participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not
>> get
 acknowledged or answered.
 
>>> 
>>> I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.
>> It's
>>> true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the
>>> past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have
>>> left the list in protest.  Personally, I think that was a mistake on
>> their
>>> part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,
>> and
>>> you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call
>> out
>>> bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and
>> my
>>> co-moderators have been doing since we took over).
>>> 
>>> By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to
>> be
>>> on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial
>> to
>>> listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF
>> responses
>>> to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful*
>>> chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here.
>>> Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on
>>> Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of
>>> accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability,
>>> access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)
>>> 
>>> Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions
>> may
>>> have been inconvenient or troublesome to address.  Yet I think the
>>> accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to
>>> prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --
>> and,
>>> I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers.  Even a
>>> response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not
>>> to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence
>> that
>>> has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.
>>> 
>>> As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my
>> volunteer
>>> capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do the 
job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? 



On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> 
> The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it is
> intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them.
> 
> See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> 
> Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something similar.
> 
> Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the other
> hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating files a
> day:
> 
> See the list from just one day:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> 
> so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> 
> I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> 
> 
> niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
>> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
>> Newsletter
>> 
>> 
>> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
>> 
>> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
>> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
>> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
>> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
>> and
>> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
>> 
>> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
>> 
>> Thrapostibongles
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who oversees the AffCom?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I'm not familiar with this specific situation, but I agree that more 
transparency and accountability would be good. 



On May 6, 2019, at 12:40 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta  
wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> A few days ago the Wikimedia affiliate I belong to was officially informed,
> by a WMF source, that I'm being subject to a until now unknown sanction,
> with an accusation from AffCom I can only describe as baseless and
> fraudulent, relating to a a situation between two affiliates, dealt with by
> AffCom more than one year ago, of which I was never part of, occurred more
> than one year ago. I was never informed of this.
> 
> This is not the first time AffCom engages in this sort of appalling
> behavior. As far as I know, WMPT is still waiting for the accusations made
> by AffCom last year, which led to its suspension, to be substantiated.
> AffCom never substantiated anything related to that, with the excuse of a
> need for secrecy.
> 
> How, I ask you all as members of the Movement, how come the Wikimedia
> Movement allowed for such a secretive, arbitrary, apparently unchecked and
> very much powerful institution to grow and thrive like this in its middle,
> overseeing and effectively controlling the relation of all of us (both
> affiliates and individuals) and the WMF?
> 
> More important than that, what can be done about this? Where one can appeal
> to, when presented with such fraudulent, baseless, secretive,
> unsubstantiated accusations by a body which was supposed to be above all
> suspicion?
> 
> Can an internal inquiry be demanded somewhere at the Wikimedia Foundation
> over the activities and decisions of AffCom, in the same way we do with
> suspicious activity by checkusers and supervisors, with the Ombudsman
> Commission?
> 
> Looking forward for any help and insight on this,
> 
> Paulo - DarwIn
> Wikimedia Portugal
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Benjamin Ikuta]

> On Apr 27, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Strainu  wrote:
> 
> They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
> articles, it won't make it a successful project.
> 

That certainly wouldn't be the worst use of funds... 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Benjamin Ikuta]

What real life problems would there be? 



On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
wrote:

> The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems 
> than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with 
> Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on 
> making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence 
> problem what we have.
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
> Gerard Meijssen 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> 
> Hoi,
> The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to
> share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to
> this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a
> template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even
> prevent other possible approaches.
> 
> Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> hinders our mission.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Elena,
>> 
>> If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia
>> with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Jim
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
>>> community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
>> via
>>> email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and
>>> individual contributors.
>>> 
>>> I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
>> wanted
>>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
>> session
>>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
>> provide
>>> feedback.
>>> 
>>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
>>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>>> 
>>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
>>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
>>> the talk page afterwards.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Elena
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Elena Lappen
>>> Community Relations Specialist
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
>> ensure
 we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
>> possible. ::
 
 Hi all,
 
 We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
>> on
 Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
 
 Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
 world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
>> get
 a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
>> evaluate
 public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
 
 We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
>> of
 our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
>> commissioned
 by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
 directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
 perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
 Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
 values.
 
 The study revealed some interesting trends:
 
 - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
>> America.
 
 - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
>> and is
 fast growing.
 
 - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
>> For
 example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
>> Wikidata at
 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
 
 - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
>> Respondents
 reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
>> relationship
 to Wikipedia.
 
 - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
>> high
 level of support for our mission.
 
 Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
>> a
 strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
 suggestions include:
 
 - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
 
 - Provide clearer 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I also don't see why it would be such a problem to have more articles about 
Pokemon. 

Volunteer effort is certainly not zero sum. 

Contributing to one area doesn't necessarily mean contributing less to another. 

Speaking from personal experience now, one of my earliest Wikipedia edits was 
about Pokemon. 

It was reverted. 

Luckily, I was not discouraged, but I know that many people would be, and that 
is a real problem. 

I think there's a bias on Wikipedia when weighing the pros and cons of policy, 
because it's easy to overlook the absence of something that never was there to 
begin with. 




On Mar 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

> We certainly could do editatons about Naruto and Pokemon and it would 
> actually be quite useful. As Paulo said, a well written "pop" page has a good 
> influence. People can understand easily how a complex and multifaceted 
> article with appropriate navboxes, infoboxed, is structured for a trivial 
> topic, and think how they can help for other topics.
> I repeat the concept: I have friends who work at the top of their fields, 
> some of them have also their own wikipedia article (I am not telling which 
> one because of respect of their privacy) and they leave edits on complex 
> topic sometimes but it's their everyday job so they are bored to do even on 
> wiki in their free time. Still, they do a little bit and they learned how to 
> do it visiting other pages about the most trivial topics you can imagine. 
> They showed me their first edits as IPs sometimes and they are as diverse as 
> you can imagine. Obscure dialects, silly TV series, things like that.
> 
> Also, since we are talking about PokemonI can show something directly 
> like Paulo did.This is the history of the article Cronologia delle modifiche 
> di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia Ulva Lactuca. HisuiSama and Adriana Hariuc who 
> added more text on January the 20th are the same students who are comparing 
> the very same morning a plant at the botanical garden to a Pokemon in this 
> gallery: https://twitter.com/Alexmar983/status/1087119134058516480
> So, Go Pokemon... I know about the "pokemon test" but in the end I actually 
> wish we had more Pokemon pages, it would probably be fine.
> Alex
> 
> 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> |  |  |
> 
> |
> 
> |
> | 
> |  | 
> Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> |
> 
> |
> 
> |
> 
> 
> 
> 
>Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 00:14:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta 
>  ha scritto:  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons 
> about Naruto and Pokemon. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta  
> wrote:
> 
>> I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto
>> and Pokemons,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>  
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about 
Naruto and Pokemon. 



On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta  
wrote:

> I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto
> and Pokemons,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I agree, we should not be deleting useful articles. 

https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism




On Mar 11, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

> I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who 
> published articles on Science and Nature basically, and in the end I think 
> they are probably qualified to have an idea of what a good encyclopedia 
> should be. The point is that these people open wiki for topics far away from 
> their area, most of the time they look also for "pop" topics. Finding pop 
> culture is what makes them stay and grow interest as much as everything else. 
> It's when they find a deleted ye useful page of something of interest for 
> some internal reason they think wikipedia it's not worth spending time on. 
> 
> Based on that experience, in all the discussions when people who claim that 
> this focus on such pop information lower our image or damage our workflow, I 
> always question where these opinions come from and if they are peer-reviewed. 
> I am a scientist, I look at data. it has been years people are claiming the 
> "popmaggedon" of wikipedia is soon, and in the meantime its overall quality 
> on very specific topic is still increasing.
> 
> A balanced encyclopedia comes from trying to fill the gaps, all information 
> are useful in that direction. As long as someone else is studying missing 
> links, pages existing in other languages, encouraging what editors want and 
> so on, your idea is just part of patchwork. I cannot peer-review such 
> statement, but at least i can tell you it is said by someone who never edited 
> a "pop" article in all his wikipedia life and manage projects of outreach in 
> organic chemistry or biophysics, to name the last ones. So I hope that it 
> gives a hint that is probably fine.
> Go on and explore.
> 
> 
> 
>Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 10:08:23 CET, Vi to  ha 
> scritto:  
> 
> That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics
> cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three
> sports, some TV series and three or four music topics.
> These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start
> focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no
> resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
> "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
> XX century".
> 
> The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
> promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
> free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
> diversity and quality.
> 
> Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
> very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
> will gain a complete influence over us.
> 
> To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
> *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
> people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
> 
> If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
> ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
> the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
> 
> Vito
> 
> Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
> ha scritto:
> 
>> The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
>> want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they
>> want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what
>> they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
>> see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
>> interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
>> our writing skills for our own benefit.
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
>> 
>>> The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
>>> 
>>> Vito
>>> 
>>> Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>> 
 Hoi,
 I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
>> really
 why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people are
 actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
>> proves
 to be of interest [1] ?
 Thanks,
   GerardM
 
 [1]
 
 
>>> 
>> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
 
 On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
 
> Hi all,
> 
> As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> demographics and user motivations and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Thank you for this. 

Could you elaborate on the definition of knowledge, please? 

This is something I've long been interested in. 




On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:04 AM, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> Hi Amir,
> 
> 
> *How can the Wikimedia movement be more truly international *
> Participants reported that the current definition of knowledge by Wikimedia
> projects is narrow-minded and does not fit the relationship with knowledge
> that exists in other parts of the world. The only way to break this cycle
> of cultural colonisation would be to actually research the needs of other
> communities, and how we can create a project that fits those needs. It is
> naive to expect that one tool can fit all, and while Wikipedia et al have
> covered many important niches, it is well possible that there are other
> elements that we are not seeing because we are not explaining our projects
> to people who could give us ideas about how to go further. There is also a
> lot of knowledge that could be interesting to collect, but does not fit in
> any of our projects yet.
> 
> In that regard, thanks to the input of the participants, and my own
> experience, I came up with some ideas that I would like to present in
> Wikimania if I am given the opportunity.
> 
> Regards,
> Micru
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:49 AM Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> 
>> I'm interested.
>> 
>> I'm especially interested in any recommendation that is even remotely
>> related to how can the Wikimedia movement be more truly international, and
>> it sounds like there could be something about it there, but even if there
>> isn't, is love to hear the rest.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> בתאריך יום ב׳, 18 בפבר׳ 2019, 01:36, מאת David Cuenca Tudela <
>> dacu...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
>>> different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
>>> democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
>>> "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
>>> interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
>>> general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
>>> movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
>>> Space sessions.
>>> 
>>> If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these
>>> topics:
>>> - External perception of the movement
>>> - Recommendations to the WMF
>>> - Governance recommendations for the movement
>>> - Community model for affiliates
>>> - How to increase diversity
>>> 
>>> There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
>>> topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
>>> keeping it to myself.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Micru
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I'd be interested in hearing about perceptions of the movement. 



On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:35 PM, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
> different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
> "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
> general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
> movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
> Space sessions.
> 
> If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these topics:
> - External perception of the movement
> - Recommendations to the WMF
> - Governance recommendations for the movement
> - Community model for affiliates
> - How to increase diversity
> 
> There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
> topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
> keeping it to myself.
> 
> Regards,
> Micru
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Survey about the Foundation's Mission

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I'll admit I was initially deceived by his initial message. 



> On Jan 16, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Risker  wrote:
> 
> I regret to say that I feel James has abused this forum once again for his
> own personal agenda, much of which is unrelated even indirectly to the WMF
> or the Wikimedia movement. Further, I feel that he has done so in a way
> that is deceptive to members of this mailing list, and that his actions are
> an abuse of the trust of the members of this mailing list.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm pretty tolerant of people bringing different
> perspectives and ideas to this mailing list; however, I believe this is a
> step too far for someone who has been asked in the past on multiple
> occasions to stay on topic.  I am not sure that James needs to remain a
> contributor to this list.
> 
> Risker/Anne
> 
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 11:56, James Salsman  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:23 AM Kevin Payravi 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've heard confusion from a couple folks and want to make sure it's clear
>>> here that this survey is coming from you as an individual, Jim, and has
>> no
>>> origination or coordination with the Foundation - correct?
>> 
>> Yes, the survey is just from me, not the Foundation. I'm trying to
>> encourage the Executive Director to bring back the "Letter to Donors"
>> which was discontinued for reasons unknown, but not the explanation
>> given to me at the time, that it was forbidden by law:
>> 
>> https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/998272655995240449
>> https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 3:44 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ... (free healthcare, universal basic income, etc.) have very little to
>>> do with the Foundation's mission.
>> 
>> That is precisely the matter of opinion which the survey measures. The
>> idea that the abundance of contributors would not increase under the
>> proposals is clearly not shared by most, and whether that means
>> contributors would therefore be "empowered" by them is subjective.
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 8:21 PM James Salsman >> 
 Happy 18th birthday to Wikipedia!
 
 What does it mean for the Wikimedia Foundation to empower
 contributors? Please share your opinion of what the Wikimedia
 Foundation's mission statement means when it describes empowering
 people to collect and develop educational content:
 
 http://bit.ly/wikimission
 
 The survey results are summarized after form submission.
 
 Best regards,
 Jim Salsman
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Survey about the Foundation's Mission

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I also assumed that, and was quite concerned. 



> On Jan 16, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Kevin Payravi  wrote:
> 
> I've heard confusion from a couple folks and want to make sure it's clear
> here that this survey is coming from you as an individual, Jim, and has no
> origination or coordination with the Foundation - correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 8:21 PM James Salsman  
>> Happy 18th birthday to Wikipedia!
>> 
>> What does it mean for the Wikimedia Foundation to empower
>> contributors? Please share your opinion of what the Wikimedia
>> Foundation's mission statement means when it describes empowering
>> people to collect and develop educational content:
>> 
>> http://bit.ly/wikimission
>> 
>> The survey results are summarized after form submission.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Jim Salsman
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,