Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners for logged-in users (was:How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?)

[David Emrany]

Hi lodewijk

I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.

The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to
Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO
website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking
to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that
whoever speaks for WMF links to it.

I am categorically saying

1) In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3
weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the
local festive season when people are receptive to giving.

2) The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in
users and readers.

3) Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian
ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016
?.

4) Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the
questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because
you are on the consuming side ?

If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/wikipedias-new-email-campaign-is-a-master-class-in-emotional-intelligence.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_promise/

PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was
paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid
"through" Jonesday.

warmly

David

On 9/11/17, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> hi david,
>
> as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be
> whether
> you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not happen,
> unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you have
> that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.
>
> you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the
> question
> at hand: the two stage loading problem.
>
> lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Joseph
>>
>> Thanks for that link.
>>
>> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
>> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
>> self-financing model.
>>
>> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
>> linking to the following messages
>>
>> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
>> for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084254.html>
>>
>> *"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
>> money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
>> the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
>> apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
>> which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
>> booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
>> squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
>> before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
>> donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
>> (a not insubstantial amount).
>>
>> Dave"*
>>
>>
>> 2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084276.html>
>>
>> *"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490
>> fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute:
>> We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a
>> case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer
>> to donate their domains (especially if they are community members),and, to
>> date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type
>> of case."*
>>
>> 3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
>> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/11/29/wikimedia-foundation-annual-fundraiser/>
>>
>> "Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
>> knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
>> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/14/rosanah-fienngo/>, Germany
>> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/09/victory-germany-appeal-dismissed/>,
>> France <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/20/france-legal-victory/>, and
>> India."
>>
>> including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not
>> linked unlike the others
>> So to sum up:
>>
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

[David Emrany]

Dear Joseph

Thanks for that link.

*NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
self-financing model.

Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
linking to the following messages

1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084254.html>

*"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
(a not insubstantial amount).

Dave"*


2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084276.html>









*"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490
fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute:
We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt
with a case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters
who offer to donate their domains (especially if they are community
members),and, to date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much
money on this type of case."*


3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/11/29/wikimedia-foundation-annual-fundraiser/>

"Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/14/rosanah-fienngo/>, Germany
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/09/victory-germany-appeal-dismissed/>,
France <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/20/france-legal-victory/>, and
India."

including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not linked
unlike the others
So to sum up:

1. The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916 for
legal services in 2014-15

2. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of that
was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my own
sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for this
case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).

3. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had
straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF and
close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up huge
legal bills which were financed by donations, and probably continues to do
so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .

4. I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally
discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party who
was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF donation banner-ads, as a
logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was at
Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached
Austraila.

5. So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.

Warmly

David


On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon <josephsed...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked thread relating to this
> topic.
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> September/088570.html
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:46 PM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sure Lodewijk,
> >
> > Banners from December 2016:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Inline_
> > donor_bannerbass.png
> >
> > Comments from Seddon
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> > December/085612.html
> >
> > Perhaps these banners were muted for logged-in users in USA, but I was
> > in S-E Asia last December and it was a very unpleasant experience for
> > me, especially while on mobile and logged in, to get a begging
> > banner/pop-up about after every 4 pages I loaded.
> >
> > David
> >
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

[David Emrany]

Sure Lodewijk,

Banners from December 2016:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Inline_donor_bannerbass.png

Comments from Seddon
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085612.html

Perhaps these banners were muted for logged-in users in USA, but I was
in S-E Asia last December and it was a very unpleasant experience for
me, especially while on mobile and logged in, to get a begging
banner/pop-up about after every 4 pages I loaded.

David

On 9/6/17, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Would you mind elaborating on the first point? I vaguely recall test
> banners being shown to logged in users, but don't recall seeing one myself
> while logged in for a while.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:16 PM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> a) This is incorrect
>> b) how many years would "for several years" encompass?
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 9/5/17, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> > WMF hasn't shown fundraising banners to logged in users for several
>> years.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Seddon
>>

___
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 can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

[David Emrany]

a) This is incorrect
b) how many years would "for several years" encompass?

David

On 9/5/17, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> WMF hasn't shown fundraising banners to logged in users for several years.
>
> Regards
> Seddon

___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[David Emrany]

Thanks Lodewikj for your excellent catches.

1. The form-990 covers the period from 01-July 2014 to 30-June 2015.
During which the payments of US$ 300,000 to Sue Gardner
(SpecialAdvisor) was comparable to Lila Tretikov's (E.D.)

2. The largest contractor was "Jones Day" US$ 1,742,916 (almost 2
million) for legal services.

To illustrate the WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
(a not insubstantial amount). Somebody should report this to the IRS.

Dave

On 5/19/16, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Thanks Greg.
>
> I hope this is a good place also to ask a few questions about the form.
> When reading and comparing
> 
> with previous forms, two things jumped out as 'odd'. Probably there's a
> reasonable explanation, and I'm mostly curious for it. They were
> conveniently missed in the FAQ
> 
> .
>
> First, there's an overview of 'highest paid contractors' (for reading
> along: page 61) and the top one is a law firm for 1.7 Million USD. Which is
> quite a big sum of money. I'm confident this was necessary and unavoidable,
> but given the much lower amounts in previous years, what happened in
> 2014/2015 that made this necessary? I understood the NSA lawsuit was done
> pro bono, which is the most visible thing I remember from that year.
>
> Second, I noted a steep increase in the costs for the Executive Director
> (for readers: someone put together a helpful overview of top salaries here
> ). I
> generally don't like to dig into personal finances, but what really stood
> out, was the increase from 200k in 2013/2014 for the ED at that time, and
> 300k for the ED in 2014/2015. Now that is an increase of 50% - which is a
> lot and partially mitigated by the salary freeze the ED had the three years
> before. But what is even more striking, is the additional 300k that was
> paid to the outgoing ED, which means basically that the compensation to the
> 'ED team' was tripled from 200k to 600k. Could someone touch on this, and
> give some pointers to what happened here? Was there a general rationale
> behind this, or was the new ED simply a tougher negotiator? Are there any
> catches how these numbers are being presented, and how they should be read
> and not misinterpreted?
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-19 8:52 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>> Hoi,
>> For a bit of background form 990 is probably something everybody knows
>> about as it is financial and important and that is why we mention this..
>> For all of you who do not know, we have a FAQ where you may find what is
>> relevant about all this.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> PS sorry Greg for pulling your leg. :)
>>
>> On 18 May 2016 at 20:55, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
>>
>> > Sent on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation's Finance Team:
>> >
>> > The Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014 - 2015 has been posted on
>> the
>> > Wikimedia Foundation Wiki's Financial Reports page:
>> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports
>> >
>> > A list of answers to frequently asked questions about this form has also
>> > been posted on the same page.
>> >
>> > Please contact Jaime Villagomez or Tony Le with any questions:
>> > jvillago...@wikimedia.org or t...@wikimedia.org
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Finance Team
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
>> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
>> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > ___
>> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
>> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>> >
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wiki Conference India 2016, logo challenge

[David Emrany]

You are aware that copyright law of India has specific procedures to
be followed for relinquishment or assignment of copyright and which
involves Registrar of copyrights or public notice (as defined in
Indian law) ?

Dave

On 5/5/16, sailesh patnaik  wrote:
> Dear Nataliia ,
> Sharing the images under CC zero is very good. I will discuss this with the
> team.
>
>
> ---
> *Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ*"
> Programme Associate, Access To Knowledge
> Centre for Internet and Society
> Phone: +91-7537097770
> *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
> *Twitter* : @saileshpat
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality"
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:36 PM, attolippip  wrote:
>
>> Dear Sailesh,
>>
>> Thank you for the info :)
>>
>> In Ukraine we usually ask people to publish their works under CC-zero
>> license [1], so we do not have to mention the author (and the license) on
>> pins and pens, but we mention the author(s) and license if there is enough
>> space for that (they are mentioned below on the conference banner here)
>> [2]
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_Вікі_Львів_конференція_19–20.IX_2.svg
>> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Вики_баннер2.jpg
>>
>> Best regards,
>> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>> Wikimedia Ukraine
>>
>> 2016-05-05 15:27 GMT+03:00 sailesh patnaik :
>>
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > WikiConference India is inviting everyone to participate in the logo
>> > challenge.  The logo should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by 10th May
>> > 2016 and should be licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
>> > You can also vote for the proposed logos.
>> >
>> > For more information:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikConference_India_2016/Logo_Challenge
>> >
>> > Thanks and Regards
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ---
>> > *Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ*"
>> > Programme Associate, Access To Knowledge
>> > Centre for Internet and Society
>> > Phone: +91-7537097770
>> > *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
>> > *Twitter* : @saileshpat
>> >
>> > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>> the
>> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality"
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > 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
>> 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should the board do *now*? [was Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal]

[David Emrany]

Hi Doc

Your sig
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

McAfee Site advisor tags it as a dangerous phishing site trying to
steal information.
Ploughing through the link leads instead to "a" Wikipedia web book on
"health care" which is edited mainly by you.

"Book" has images from anonymous authors with dodgy histories (did
they study medicine in Mexico ?) eg.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Herpes_esophagitis.JPG

Misleading stuff.

Dave

On 5/5/16, James Heilman  wrote:
> Agree Thanks Luis
>
> Many excellent suggestions.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
>> > tl;dr: the board did not effectively perform one of their most important
>> > roles (managing the ED); the board (and board candidates) should be
>> talking
>> > about how they will fix that.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks Luis for the very thoughtful email.
>>
>> Managing a Chief Executive / ED isn't an easy task (ask anyone who's done
>> it) but I think you have identified a lot of useful steps about how the
>> WMF
>> Board can do it better in future.
>>
>> Chris
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[David Emrany]

Dear Gerard

Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].

IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
Kolbe has linked to

Regards

Dave

[1]  
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en

[2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640

On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
>
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
>
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adele
>>
>> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
>> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
>>
>> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
>> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
>> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
>>
>> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
>> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
>> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
>>
>> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
>> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>>
>> [2]
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
>>
>> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana <avr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> > Hi Teles,
>> >
>> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
>> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
>> >
>> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
>> > requiring
>> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
>> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
>> > editing
>> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
>> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
>> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
>> >
>> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
>> of
>> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
>> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
>> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
>> challenge
>> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
>> >
>> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
>> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
>> > upload
>> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
>> (like
>> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
>> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
>> of
>> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
>> Community
>> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
>> > removed.
>> >
>> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
>> would
>> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
>> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
>> > had
>> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
>> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

[David Emrany]

Hi Eloquence

Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
spin-off this new organization ?.

Am I  correct in assuming the Mediawiki software  can be forked by
anybody interested along with attribution ?

Regards

Dave

[1]  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg

On 3/18/16, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> == Potential test case: MediaWiki Foundation ==
>
> A "MediaWiki Foundation" [5] has been proposed a few times and I
> suspect continues to have some currency within WMF. This org would not
> be focused on all WMF-related development work, but specifically on
> MediaWiki as software that has value to third parties. Its mission
> could include hosting services as earned income (and potentially as an
> extension of the Wikimedia movement’s mission).
>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[David Emrany]

Hi Adele

Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]

Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.

WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
Facebook's ersatz versions [2]

Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.

David

[1] 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/

[2] 
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/

On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> Hi Teles,
>
> As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
>
> Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
>
> In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload of
> copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular challenge
> of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
>
> Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form (like
> huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware of
> this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to Community
> Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
>
> We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we would
> prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from zero
> rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this issue.
> As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
>
> With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
> resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
> examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
> discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you and
> the list here.
>
> On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
> readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber counts)
> and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s not
> enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
> is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
> that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.
>
> However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
> community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
> crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
> hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
> opportunity to learn how to deal with new readers and editors.
>
> Best regards,
> Adele
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which are
>> really
>> interesting to read -- read them in english --
>> https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf  of course I dont expect
>> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but
>> they
>> do know the principles of it and what they can do
>>
>> some points of interest
>>
>>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>>by the press or broadcast
>>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
>> photographic
>>process by  documentation centres  or teaching
>> organisations
>>. refers 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[David Emrany]

Hi Adam

I believe you better understand how the robbery happened by studying
the way the composition of the Board and WMF's senior functionaries
rotated between 2005 to 2010. You can access these online from the
government websites where WMF filed them

David

On 3/9/16, Adam Wight  wrote:
> I need some help researching the history of the Wikimedia Foundation's
> membership status.  It's very slow going, and we could use the help of
> people who understand nonprofit law, with experience practicing in Florida
> a definite plus.
>
> In the meantime, here's one more interesting lead: [1]  This is a list of
> filings made with the Florida Division of Corporations.  Bylaws are not
> filed with the State [2], so I'm still unclear about how the Wikimedia
> Foundation would have reported the change from a membership to a
> non-membership organization.  The last paragraph of this pamphlet addresses
> our question, unfortunately the pamphlet is written for Maine and not
> Florida: [3]  I'll quote it here for convenience, because it's relevant,
> and sort of reassuring to know that other people have had the same problems.
>
>> It is not uncommon for an organization to have been established with
> legal members years ago, without much thought given to the matter. Often,
> in the hustle and bustle of things, the membership aspect has withered away
> and the organization is no longer following its burdensome, albeit
> well-intentioned, articles and bylaws provisions on membership. A Board in
> this position can do one of three things: It can amend the articles and
> bylaws so as to become a non-membership organization (although usually this
> step requires the vote of the members, so can be easier said than done).
> It can change its practices so as to start complying with the membership
> provisions. A third and perilous option is to ignore the issue, and hope no
> one notices or cares.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
> Disclaimer: I am employed full-time by the Wikimedia Foundation, but this
> is a personal letter. Statements made from this email account are my own,
> and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
>
> [1]
> http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230=domnp-n0305323-6dc7ff3a-b7ba-4c97-9b9e-4545cef1ca0a=wikimedia%20foundation=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230
> [2] https://efile.sunbiz.org/Profit_Filing_Help.html
> [3]
> http://www.nonprofitmaine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PrimerMembershipNonprofitOrganizations.pdf
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM Adam Wight  wrote:
>
>> Hi Florence,
>>
>> Thanks for jumping into this conversation and sharing your illuminating
>> perspective as an "old timer" :-)  I wanted to take a moment to also thank
>> you for your initiatives at the time, it's thrilling to imagine what might
>> have happened if more people had taken an interest in your "less easy
>> way"[1] of developing membership into a concrete governance model like the
>> Apache Software Foundation[2].  Without the open, constructive letters you
>> were writing at the time to communicate between the Board and Wikimedians,
>> we couldn't be having this conversation now.
>>
>> I'd love to hear any more thoughts about how we might have, or still
>> could, work around the Florida recordkeeping requirements,[3] Alex Roshuk
>> for example suggested that our database may have been an adequate
>> membership roster, because "names and addresses" could possibly be
>> interpreted to allow for pseudonyms and email addresses or a WMF P.O. box,
>> as long as there was no intent to defraud.[4]  Brad Patrick's input on
>> this
>> would be invaluable as well, thank you for pinging him.  It seems like he
>> might have recognized that this was uncharted legal territory, and pushed
>> for a conservative revision of the bylaws to reduce risks and eliminate
>> the
>> open questions?
>>
>> Adam
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2006-June/067648.html
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
>> [3]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy#Recordkeeping_requirements
>> [4]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Thadman/Give_Back_Our_Membership#A_few_clarifications
>> "You seem to think that there is something irreconcilable with
>> pseudonymous
>> contributions and membership"
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Florence Devouard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 27/01/16 19:30, SarahSV a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard 
 wrote:

 I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.

> But ianal...
>
> I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.
>
> I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps
> he
> might be willing to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[David Emrany]

Oliver

I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating
the community.

IMO, this came to a boil  in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure
and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other
things.

I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and
trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a
whimper from the community reps on the BoT  who we entrusted to
protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly.

David

[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/

On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen
> Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault
> threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most
> horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.
>
> This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the
> neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered,
> detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in
> LessWrong.[1]
>
> No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission
> that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things
> in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that
> James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately
> or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion
> with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.
>
> Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving,
> intentionally, and if
> this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in
> a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a
> founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have
> signed up for them.
>
> And if you instead don't understand why this
> sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic,
> you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go
> find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not
> productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think
> you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but,
> you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality
> demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want
> a part of.
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my
> brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with
> people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for
> disagreeing with an idea
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb.
>> 29.
>> I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html
>>
>> I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics
>> surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed
>> interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's
>> worth, I did check with James H.; he had no objection to my sharing it.)
>>
>> For context, as I understand it, Jimmy's message was more or less in
>> response to this list message of mine:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>>
>> *From: *Jimmy Wales
>>
>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM
>>
>> *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman
>>
>> *Subject: **A conversation?*
>>
>>
>> James, I wonder if you'd be up for a one on one conversation. I've been
>> struck in a positive way by some of the things that Pete has said and I
>> realize that moving things forward on wikimedia-l, being sniped at by
>> people who are as interested in creating drama as anything else, isn't
>> really conducive to reaching more understanding.
>>
>> I have some questions for you - real, sincere, and puzzled questions.
>> Some of the things that you have said strike me as very obviously out of
>> line with the facts. And I wonder how to reconcile that.
>>
>> One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that
>> one.
>>
>> Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional
>> intelligence or something like that - you seem to say things that just
>> don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that
>> are clearly not true.
>>
>> Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored
>> your perceptions on certain details.
>>
>> As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said
>> publicly that you wrote to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[David Emrany]

Philippe

There is no public evidence of your misleading statements re years of
careful planning.and execution.

What there is public evidence of is that the WMF has systematically
evaded its enforcement responsibilities under the Terms of Use.

To cite 1 specific instance, Sue Gardner was repeatedly informed about
the pedo on-wiki grooming by User Demiurge1000

"Who is responsible for child protection ?"
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner=10496213#Response_to_your_question

It is deeply unsettling to have your confirmation that Sue Gardner sat
on this for years and it was only Lila (an outsider with no great ties
to the community) who could globally ban this user out.

PS: You surely recall “I won’t allow the accusations that the anon is
making to stand on my talk page. I’ve redacted them. Philippe
Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)”

David

On 3/2/16, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:
> Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole,
> not to that amendment alone.  And I agree with him, for the record.
>
> Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping
> to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work
> took place under Sue, and was the result of years of careful planning and
> execution.
>
> pb
>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[David Emrany]

Dear Coren

I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
(16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
on 1 June 2014.

I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
through better technology.

I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
privately.

[1] 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use=revision=98138=90463

BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
with "absolute certainty".

Dave

On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
>> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
>> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
>> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
>
> I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
> things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:
>
> (a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
> abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
> Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.
>
> (b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of abuse
> were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
> started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
> had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue initiative
> from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been all
> Sue.
>
> (c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
> Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
> remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
> the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
> but they always tried their best.
>
> So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has no
> relationship with reality.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Dear David

I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
Africa are not properly represented here.

The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
of the stables, but the task was beyond her.

The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
of the movement are being created daily.

To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]

" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
DEVICES .. " [2]

[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm

[2] http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf

David

On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
> "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".

> Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
> suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
> find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
> dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
> responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
>
> However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
> consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
> is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
> it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
> take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
> https://xkcd.com/1217/
>
> I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
> cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
> themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
> professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
> take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
> constitutes.
>
> When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
> or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
> work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
> movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
> goes.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[David Emrany]

I was subliminally aware of your assist in Nemo's protest to Lila.

What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.

1) WIKI-PR (250 sock accounts)
2) Orange Moody(350+ accounts)
3) DeCoetzee
4) Wifione
5) Cuntgate - Eric Corbett
6) Gamergate

How long will WMF/BoT keep denying that there are persons in high
positions of trust (remember Essjay) who are misusing Wikipedia for
personal profit and in ways detrimental to the Terms of Use. Surely it
would be the simplest thing for WMF to insist on verification of WMF
user accounts, to ensure that minors cannot edit, or else to ensure
that anonymous editors must take responsibility for defamatory/biased
content..

David

On 3/1/16, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-02-29 23:19 GMT-08:00 David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>:
>
>> so reading your email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the
>> Stanton Foundation fiasco ? [1]
>>
>> "The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the
>> future, any grants that are not unrestricted will receive a special
>> high level of scrutiny before being accepted."
>> ..
>> "The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for
>> staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that
>> staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community
>> policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a
>> simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014."
>
> I'm not sure if there's a question for me here? I wasn't involved in
> the Belfer project until the postmortem. The ED transition happened
> shortly thereafter. Regardless of whether it came up in that context
> (I don't know for sure, but I doubt it), the follow-up was lost in the
> shuffle. Nemo pointed that out a few months later, and Lila's final
> response on the issue is here:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-March/077339.html
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[David Emrany]

Dear Erik,

Wikimovement veterans recall your invaluable assistance in arranging
the 3 million grant from the Sloan Foundation to WMF, so reading your
email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the Stanton
Foundation fiasco ? [1]

"The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the
future, any grants that are not unrestricted will receive a special
high level of scrutiny before being accepted."
..
"The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for
staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that
staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community
policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a
simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014."

In this context can we have a public comment from Jimmy / WMF on who
exactly are the large donors funding WMF's systematic promotion of
LGBT "Wiki loves Pride" type themes and Pride edit-a-thons, and can
the political biases / preferences of WMF be clearly linked to when
soliciting donations from Wikipedia users through banner ads along
with links to full disclosure of WMF's institutional sponsors and
their quid-pro-quos.

[1] 
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program.
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070665.html
[3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070670.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride

David

On 3/1/16, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 2016-02-29 19:24 GMT-08:00 Chris Sherlock :
>
>> With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure how could come to the
>> conclusion that general
>> Internet search was not a core component of the Knowledge Engine.
>
> It's important to remember that this is a $250K grant, with a grant
> period that ends later this year. It's clear that this was done
> because everyone involved realized that the plans are likely to
> change. Knight has given grants to WMF in the past, including a $600K
> one with a longer grant period [1], so this isn't a particularly bold
> step for them or for WMF. Within the scope of a grant with these
> parameters, it's completely reasonable for WMF, at the end of the
> grant period, to go back to Knight and say: "We've done everything we
> committed to for the grant period [improve internal search etc.], but
> we won't be doing anything beyond that."
>
> That is not to say that this process was managed well -- obviously it
> wasn't. But at least there are no catastrophic long term consequences
> for the organization or for the movement, as far as I can tell. That
> is, unless Larry Page read one of the early news stories and decided
> to send a DESTROY WIKIMEDIA memo to all Alphabet companies, in which
> case I expect Boston Dynamics robots to show up at New Montgomery
> Street any day now. [2]
>
> Erik
>
> [1] http://knightfoundation.org/grants/20123673/
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[David Emrany]

Dear Anne

As a community member *I* am interested in knowing if WMF (or Jimmy)
is selling to Google - or to anybody else ... like the Chinese.[1]

David

[1] http://wikipediasucks.boards.net/post/762

On 3/1/16, Risker  wrote:
> On 29 February 2016 at 20:43, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > So please, let's stop pretending those two words mean the same thing.
>> >
>>
>> Nobody here is talking about vendor agreements; at least I am not. I have
>> no problem whatsoever with your scenario. If the WMF enters into an
>> umbrella agreement or business deal with Google or whoever, then that is
>> something the community should know. If the WMF gets computer hardware at
>> a
>> preferential rate, absolutely no one is interested in that.
>>
>
> Because, Andreas, I do not want the Wikimedia Foundation to commit
> suicide.
>
> I cannot for the life of me imagine what Google sells that the WMF would be
> interested in buying, so I'm finding your example a bit weird. >
> RIsker/Anne

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Hi David,

It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily
instead of driving them away.

In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker says
"The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to
keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors
from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a
system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]

English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established
syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their
self-protecting policies.  A large number of these persons are paid
editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to
positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly
misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of
Interest.

I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal
responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly)
anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.

I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified
identities for its users and administrators across all its projects,
and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving
so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of
its projects, including through paid editing.

David

[1] 
http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-Big-Problem-CHART/articleshow/26238463.cms

On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it
> would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
> voluntarily...
> There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it
> cannot be done.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
>> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to
>> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance
>> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been
>> a
>> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
>> foundation support to move forwards.
>>
>> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
>> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of
>> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If
>> others
>> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very
>> early
>> stages from what I understand.
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Hi Brion

When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia

Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
stealth PR campaigns

"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]

"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].

Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
/ weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
long-term contributors.

At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our
projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but
about regulating them.

David

[1]  
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html

[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/

On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> Two distinct issues, I think:
>
> 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we
> have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
> would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking
> beyond WMF alone:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
>
> 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
> mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is,
> so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
> volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out
> our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within
> WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
>
> -- brion
> On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela"  wrote:
>
>> Brion,
>> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF
>> as
>> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about
>> other
>> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
>> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be
>> more
>> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
>> focus in empowering volunteers?
>> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
>> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
>> dedicated without paying them directly?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Micru

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[David Emrany]

I am appalled that anybody is seriously suggesting "paid editing" be
institutionalized.

The real issue to be addressed are the large number of trustees,
staff, Arbcom members, and
administrators who are undisclosed paid editors and who ensure that
uninterested editors are driven away.

What do you do when admins like Wifione deny and deny and stonewall
their conflict of interests ? Was Wifione the sacrificial exception
because he was from India ?

How do you expect an uninvolved ordinary editor to cope at ANI with a
Arbcom member (especially one who has self declared their SEO business
/ paid editing) if they have a dispute?

David
Ludwigsburg, DE

On 2/27/16, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation  would be
> exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some
> hypothetical examples would help.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
 opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing,
 those
 opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
 need
 to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
 the
 WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
 involved
 in paid editing.


 ​Hi Pete,

>>>
>>> I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
>>> thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
>>> could help unpaid editors.
>>>
>>> To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
>>> neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
>>> no
>>> relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
>>> by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a
>>> well-written,
>>> reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
>>> sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
>>> exactly the opposite.)
>>>
>>> It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
>>> work,
>>> but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on
>>> it
>>> for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
>>> The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
>>> core
>>> policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck
>>> me
>>> as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
>>> COI.
>>>
>>> I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
>>> way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
>>> be
>>> something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
>>> experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>>
>> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
>> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
>> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
>> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
>> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
>>
>> Flo
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,