[Wikimedia-l] Re: Query about membership to Wikimedia Chapters

[Lane Chance]

WMAU is a registered charity in Victoria state and a registered NFP
and so complies with guidelines from the Charities and Not-for-profits
Commission. WMAU is therefore required to comply with the Privacy Act
1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles.[1] This includes how an
individual can access documents about them, their chapter membership
or indeed all discussions about their membership rejection.

As a well managed charity, WMAU are set up to understand and correctly
respond to requests for information. Here's a draft neutral access
request that could be done by email:

To: Wikimedia Australia
Subject: Access Request under the Australian Privacy Principles

I am writing to request access to all correspondence and documents
relating to my membership for Wikimedia Australia.

Under the Australian Privacy Principles, I have the right to access my
personal information that is held by Wikimedia Australia. This
includes any correspondence and documents that were used in the
decision to reject my membership.

I would like to receive a copy of all of this information in
electronic format. Please send the information to the email address
provided above.

I understand that you have 30 days to respond to my request. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

[Contact details]

Links
1. 
https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles/australian-privacy-principles-guidelines/chapter-1-app-1-open-and-transparent-management-of-personal-information

On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 06:25, Andrew Owens  wrote:
>
> The by laws are at https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Rules - 4(5), (6) and (9) 
> give the committee the ability to accept or reject, but don't specify 
> grounds. Policies listed on the site don't mention criteria for accepting or 
> rejecting membership.
>
> I'd love to help but the chapter just rejected my own application for 
> membership without giving reasons and I'm still trying to find out why.
>
> Kindest regards
> Andrew
> ___
> 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/XO456ZM7I7WFFEZ2ONMNAZHLMTFCRDOE/
> 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/YT7CZQFJZ3VSSHPE3G3VQ7HYACVW57JJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source

[Lane Chance]

Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and
competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources, and Bard
does sometimes put a suitable source in a footnote, even if it
(somewhat disappointingly) just links to wikipedia. There's likely to
be a variation soon that does a decent job of providing references,
and at that point the role of these tools moves beyond being an
amusement to a far more credible research tool.

So, these long discussions about impact on open knowledge are quite
likely to have to run again in 2024...

On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 09:24, Kiril Simeonovski
 wrote:
>
> Thank you everyone for your input.
>
> Your considerations are very similar to mine, and they give a clear direction 
> towards what the guidelines regarding the use of ChatGPT should point to.
>
> Best regards,
> Kiril
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 10:11, Ilario valdelli  wrote:
>>
>> Define "reliable source".
>>
>> A source is reliable if can be consulted by other people than the editor
>> to check the content.
>>
>> Is this possible with ChatGPT? No, becaue if you address the same
>> question to CHatGPT, you will have a different answer.
>>
>> In this case how the people verificaying the information can check that
>> the editor did not invent the result?
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> On 17/05/2023 09:08, Kiril Simeonovski wrote:
>> > Dear Wikimedians,
>> >
>> > Two days ago, a participant in one of our edit-a-thons consulted
>> > ChatGPT when writing an article on the Macedonian Wikipedia that did
>> > not exist on any other language edition. ChatGPT provided some output,
>> > but the problem was how to cite it.
>> >
>> > The community on the Macedonian Wikipedia has not yet had a discussion
>> > on this matter and we do not have any guidelines. So, my main
>> > questions are the following:
>> >
>> > * Can ChatGPT be used as a reliable source and, if yes, how would the
>> > citation look like?
>> >
>> > * Are there any ongoing community discussions on introducing guidelines?
>> >
>> > My personal opinion is that ChatGPT should be avoided as a reliable
>> > source, and only the original source where the algorithm gets the
>> > information from should be used.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Kiril
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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/WMGIBNPN5JNJGUOCLWFCCPD7EL5YN6KU/
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> --
>> Ilario Valdelli
>> Wikimedia CH
>> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
>> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
>> Wikipedia: Ilario
>> Skype: valdelli
>> Tel: +41764821371
>> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>>
> ___
> 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/4L4K2BUD3YYTAKN6JPHVSSVGOFHW5AKG/
> 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/DNOFFTF2DECPFETILCWBOVT5AD63R3UH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Lane Chance]

...
> It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a deliberate 
> and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
> Risker/Anne

The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
"non-accountability".

The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.

* Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
responsible for it.

As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
wanted them to walk out or put the phone down on me.

Thanks,
Lane
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/M7NFIYBISPN54CF4CZ5QYKBSIONZ3PKR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Block of Wikipedia in Pakistan

[Lane Chance]

Thank you for making a statement.

Could the WMF please publish the take down order (on-wiki)?

I understand that take down orders are not normally considered
confidential or private, though there may be reasons for you to
publish a redacted version. There are obvious benefits to volunteers
taking their own precautions to protect themselves and their projects
depending on the nature of what the PTA considers "sacrilegious
content" to be, and the news coverage indicates that the regulator has
so far not made this public.

Lane

Potential citations
1. Aljazeera: 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/4/pakistan-blocks-wikipedia-citing-blasphemous-content
2. WMF blog post:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/02/03/wikimedia-foundation-urges-pakistan-telecommunications-authority-to-restore-access-to-wikipedia-in-pakistan
3. Pakistan Today:
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2023/02/04/pta-ban-hammer-downs-wikipedia-over-blasphemous-content
4. Yahoo News: 
https://ph.news.yahoo.com/pakistan-degrades-wikipedia-warns-complete-162957457.html

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 01:45, Stephen LaPorte  wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) ordered that access to 
> Wikipedia be suspended in Pakistan. We are urging the Pakistan government to 
> restore access to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects immediately.
>
> This action denies the fifth most populous nation in the world access to the 
> world's largest, free online knowledge repository. If it continues, it will 
> also deny the world the perspective of the people of Pakistan and the benefit 
> of their knowledge, history, and culture.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation received a notification from the Pakistan 
> Telecommunication Authority on February 1, 2023, stating “the services of 
> Wikipedia have been degraded for 48 hours” for failure to remove content from 
> the site deemed “unlawful” by the government. The notification further 
> mentioned that a block of Wikipedia could follow, if the Foundation did not 
> comply with the takedown orders. As of Friday February 3, our internal 
> traffic reports indicate that Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are no longer 
> accessible to users in Pakistan.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation is already examining various avenues and 
> investigating how we can help restore access, while staying true to our 
> values of verifiability, neutrality, and freedom of information.
>
> We are also prepared to support any members of the Wikimedia communities who 
> are impacted. If you or someone you know is contacted by the Pakistani 
> government in reference to the block, please contact us at 
> le...@wikimedia.org. If you or someone you know is in immediate physical 
> danger in reference to the block, please contact emerge...@wikimedia.org 
> right away. We are actively working to reach out to community leaders in the 
> area.
>
> For over twenty years, our movement has supported knowledge as a fundamental 
> human right. In defense of this right, we have opposed a growing number of 
> threats that would interfere with the ability of people to access and 
> contribute to free knowledge. We know that many of you will want to take 
> action or speak out against the block. For now, please continue to do what is 
> needed to remain safe. We will keep you updated on any new developments, 
> actions we are taking, and ways which you can help return access to Wikipedia 
> and Wikimedia projects in Pakistan.
>
> Thank you,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen LaPorte (he/him/his)
> General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical 
> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community 
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on 
> what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.
>
> ___
> 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/BBL2KGUMFHNVNHSA4UINFMLIVPO6GQB5/
> 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/TVKSEJO7CBNE3OT3XRBPCOTY7IL2AQ5S/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Lane Chance]

Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.

A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
"holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.

Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions
and defensive non-answers.

For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in
the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be
edited later on a wiki:
"This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s
message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia
Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal
Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial
systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the
direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement
made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect
representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification
was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from
the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies
in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation
and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the
movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best
regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)"

Thanks,
Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia Signpost)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
> Regards,
> Julia
>
> [1] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides?
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sam,
>>
>> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been moved, or 
>> it has not been moved.
>>
>> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn't 
>> move it to a separate 501e3 entity?"
>>
>> Here is the complete question again:
>>
>> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides Foundation. 
>> According to SignPost 
>> (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion)
>>  on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us 
>> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches 
>> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a 
>> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 
>> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia 
>> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into 
>> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report 
>> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information 
>> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?
>>
>> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of affairs 
>> – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org ready, 
>> so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I feel, 
>> have looked something like this:
>>
>> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity when it 
>> reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that move. We 
>> have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a new 
>> organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. We 
>> are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment and 
>> expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year).
>>
>> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the money had 
>> already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated to the 
>> Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been transferred to a 
>> dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022.
>>
>> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the Endowment 
>> page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently managed by 
>> the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund".
>>
>> There are really two issues here:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[Lane Chance]

Just to remind you, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio is one of the Wikimedia
Foundation's unelected trustees. He publicly supported the infamous
"monkey" NFTs, widely thought to mirror racist tropes,* and used one as his
social media avatar when first appointed to the board.

In the last 24 hours a class action lawsuit is in the news, suing
celebrities who were paid to promote the same Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs now
considered "fraudulently misleading". It remains bizarre that the Wikimedia
Foundation, considered a technology-leading organization with a core
commitment to ethical behaviour, is publicly represented by someone who was
openly part of the BAYC fanbois with such bad judgement they helped this
alleged pyramid scheme. This background of lousy judgement does not meet
the requirement for anyone sitting in top-level governance over the
activities and massive funding for Wikimedia projects and operations.

As was previously remarked in this email thread, "We should have looked at
that history and trod more carefully." More worryingly the defensively
circling the wagons at the beginning of the year to brush off the questions
this raises shows that the Wikimedia Foundation nor the governance
committee they rely on to "vet" unelected trustee appointments, failed.

* A context here from an analysis by David Gerard "It does seem pretty
likely that the Ape bros are at least casually racist. For one thing, they
clearly feel at home in those corners of internet edgelord culture whose
syncretism includes the troll disposition that has characterised the
identitarian right since at least the eighties, the performative nihilism
that has come to characterise disaffected digital natives in the wake of
the Great Recession, and the ironic hipster racism that somehow always
stops being ironic after a while. For another, they are shilling crypto, a
project of the far right since day one." [3]

Thanks,
Lane

References
1.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/celebrity-promoters-sued-over-bored-ape-nft-endorsements-1235279115
2.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/celebrities-bored-apes-are-hilariously-worthless-now
3.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2022/02/06/bored-ape-yacht-club-and-neo-nazis-so-much-reaching-for-just-four-bananas/

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 16:02, Lane Chance  wrote:

> Dariusz, Chair of the BGC: "Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a
> factor here – the Governance Committee, and then the Board, were
> considering other things..."
>
> This is so wrong it's painful to read. The fundamental job of the
> Governance Committee is to ensure that appointed trustees do not come with
> the potential to cause harm to the Wikimedia 'brand' and the community.
>
> A WMF trustee that promotes Bitcoin and NFTs? Compare with the WMF
> statement "We at the Wikimedia Foundation strive to ensure that our work
> and mission support a sustainable world" - now in the bin as it lacks any
> credibility from here on, as the governance committee and therefore the
> board of trustees does not believe in these values. This is not a
> successful appointment, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio is not welcome as they are a
> controversial and damaging addition to the board.
>
> Ref:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:40, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Dan,
>>
>> Thank you for the feedback!
>>
>> The search for a trustee with an expertise in product and technology
>> began a few months ago. One of the problems we identified was that the
>> Wikimedia Foundation CTOs (Chief Technology Officer) are usually not
>> staying for a long period of time, and then there was also a CPO (Chief
>> Product Officer) transition. It was also important that the new CEO (Chief
>> Executive Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience
>> and leadership in the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with
>> the understanding and experience of how technology and communities can work
>> together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is very relevant.
>>
>> The other critical factor was diversity – the search was prioritizing
>> candidates with experience outside of Silicon Valley, in non-English
>> speaking countries, preferably from the Global South.
>>
>> And, of course, we also needed a commitment to spend enough time on the
>> Board work – to be engaged and present. For example, Luis met online and
>> offline with Wikimedia volunteers from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking
>> communities, he is eager to help us with his knowledge and experience.
>> Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a factor here – the Governance
>> Committee, and then 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter of support for Les sans pagEs

[Lane Chance]

A detailed response by LSP to questions raised on the French
Wikipedia, and a summary of the context of being subject to an
unpleasant pile on, and direct personal attacks on the team, was
published yesterday at:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Réponses_aux_questions_posées_à_l'association_LSP

If you can't read French, Google translate does a perfectly adequate
job to do the necessary reading everyone is expected to do as a *basic
courtesy*, before publishing opinions.

Lane
On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 07:34, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> It is hard to determine what is being complained about, when the letter does 
> not actually link to any of the threads it complains about. If it did that, 
> it would be much more easily possible for someone to look into the substance 
> of it. It states that it has been linked to "continual bad-faith arguments" 
> (itself concerning; that's not a neutral summary) of discussions "on the 
> project’s talk page, on the administrators’ bulletin and on Le Bistro and a 
> formal RFC — including calls for the disestablishment of the project on the 
> basis of concerns around Conflicts of interest and Paid editing."
>
> Where are the links to those discussions? Where can I see what concerns were 
> raised? If there is paid editing going on, that's a substantial concern, as 
> is COI. If the arguments are in bad faith, well, that should be readily 
> apparent, too. But where are the links?
>
> Todd
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:17 AM Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>> Responding to LGBTQ minority communities raising legitimate, evidence
>> based, concerns of systemic bias with "stay in your lane"?
>>
>> I don't think I've read anything more tone deaf.
>>
>> The give away is "Without having looked into the actual substance". Do
>> the research before rushing to punch down the voice of minority
>> groups.
>>
>> Lane
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 01:25, Yair Rand  wrote:
>> >
>> > Without having looked into the actual substance of whatever dispute is 
>> > going on among frwiki and LSP, I want to put forward some good general 
>> > principles:
>> > * The individual hiring and firing decisions of our organizations should 
>> > be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the entities assigned those 
>> > responsibilities. Public community pressure should not be able to get 
>> > someone fired or hired, or prevent any particular hiring or firing 
>> > decision. A public protest against someone's hiring is unproductive and 
>> > damages the collaborative environment.
>> > * Responding to a community's attitude by sending out a monodirectional 
>> > communication, organized off-wiki and listing supporters' affiliate 
>> > positions, is basically the most conflict-oriented way possible to 
>> > approach this.
>> >
>> > How an affiliate manages their individual hires is the affiliate's 
>> > business. HR activities are complicated, and do not need to be handled in 
>> > the public sphere. If an affiliate wants to hire whoever, the community 
>> > doesn't get to veto it.
>> >
>> > How a community reacts to an affiliate's actions is their own business. 
>> > Affiliates do not get a say in local community affairs. A usergroup's or 
>> > chapter's collective opinion is completely irrelevant in a community 
>> > dialogue. If the community wants to ban someone, or even the entire 
>> > membership of a group, they can do that, and affiliates don't get to veto 
>> > it.
>> >
>> > (Seriously: It doesn't matter if you're the WMF's Board Chair, the CEO, or 
>> > whatever, you don't get an extra vote in an RfC.)
>> >
>> > (It should go without saying that hostile/uncivil behaviour, harassment, 
>> > and accusations of bad faith are not acceptable.)
>> >
>> > Everyone, please stay in your lane. This is like the only place on 
>> > Wikimedia where we clearly even _have_ obvious distinct lanes, it should 
>> > be manageable.
>> >
>> > -- Yair Rand
>> >
>> >
>> > ‫בתאריך יום ו׳, 16 בספט׳ 2022 ב-4:30 מאת ‪WM LGBT‬‏ 
>> > <‪wikimedial...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>> >>
>> >> Link: 
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_of_support_for_Les_sans_pagEs
>> >>
>> >> Over 35 Wikimedia organisations and many individual Wikimedians have
>> >> signed in support of the initiative of our Wikimedia Affiliate Les
>> >> sans pagEs professionalising their work by hiring Nattes à ch

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter of support for Les sans pagEs

[Lane Chance]

Responding to LGBTQ minority communities raising legitimate, evidence
based, concerns of systemic bias with "stay in your lane"?

I don't think I've read anything more tone deaf.

The give away is "Without having looked into the actual substance". Do
the research before rushing to punch down the voice of minority
groups.

Lane

On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 01:25, Yair Rand  wrote:
>
> Without having looked into the actual substance of whatever dispute is going 
> on among frwiki and LSP, I want to put forward some good general principles:
> * The individual hiring and firing decisions of our organizations should be 
> under the exclusive jurisdiction of the entities assigned those 
> responsibilities. Public community pressure should not be able to get someone 
> fired or hired, or prevent any particular hiring or firing decision. A public 
> protest against someone's hiring is unproductive and damages the 
> collaborative environment.
> * Responding to a community's attitude by sending out a monodirectional 
> communication, organized off-wiki and listing supporters' affiliate 
> positions, is basically the most conflict-oriented way possible to approach 
> this.
>
> How an affiliate manages their individual hires is the affiliate's business. 
> HR activities are complicated, and do not need to be handled in the public 
> sphere. If an affiliate wants to hire whoever, the community doesn't get to 
> veto it.
>
> How a community reacts to an affiliate's actions is their own business. 
> Affiliates do not get a say in local community affairs. A usergroup's or 
> chapter's collective opinion is completely irrelevant in a community 
> dialogue. If the community wants to ban someone, or even the entire 
> membership of a group, they can do that, and affiliates don't get to veto it.
>
> (Seriously: It doesn't matter if you're the WMF's Board Chair, the CEO, or 
> whatever, you don't get an extra vote in an RfC.)
>
> (It should go without saying that hostile/uncivil behaviour, harassment, and 
> accusations of bad faith are not acceptable.)
>
> Everyone, please stay in your lane. This is like the only place on Wikimedia 
> where we clearly even _have_ obvious distinct lanes, it should be manageable.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ו׳, 16 בספט׳ 2022 ב-4:30 מאת ‪WM LGBT‬‏ 
> <‪wikimedial...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>>
>> Link: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_of_support_for_Les_sans_pagEs
>>
>> Over 35 Wikimedia organisations and many individual Wikimedians have
>> signed in support of the initiative of our Wikimedia Affiliate Les
>> sans pagEs professionalising their work by hiring Nattes à chat as
>> executive director to continue their longstanding work addressing
>> systemic bias on Wikipedia and our sister projects and groups.
>>
>> Les sans pagEs should be free and supported to create a better
>> quality, more complete French-language encyclopedia, representative of
>> different perspectives and lived experiences, instead of having to
>> defend their work against baseless accusations of malpractice.
>>
>> Please ask on the meta discussion page if you would like to add your
>> Wikimedia organisation or name in support.
>>
>> On behalf of
>> Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT
>> ___
>> 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/UWTGWAJERTSNWYLQXEERNA4GUQO6T6RG/
>> 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/VBM52FLSYEC4MC5CNZSP3TN7UAANQXZA/
> 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/AJ474NR2MKPMM6VRVXPQM5K4NZ7CNSUQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[Lane Chance]

Hi, from the statements so far, there seems no planned date for
implementation. By this I mean a date from which an affected volunteer can
raise a complaint.

Given the extended redrafting, "conversations" and having another vote, is
it fair to estimate that the earliest for UCoC cases would be sometime in
2023, probably more than 12 months from now?

In practice would this also mean that people affected by unacceptable
behaviour in 2021 and probably throughout 2022 should give up on any plan
they may have to lodge a UCoC case?

Lane

On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 17:44, Stella Ng  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> Speaking as the senior manager of the team whose role it was to support
> the UCoC drafters:  we should remember that high level, section 3 of the
> UCoC (Unacceptable Behavior)  is meant to address bad behavior. When
> writing this, the drafting committee was thinking specifically of the
> potential of harm, such as physical or reputational as well the context and
> intent behind the behavior.
>
> It is also worth noting that currently, ENWP has rules regarding private
> information and doxxing that go into more detail than the UCoC Phase 1 text
> (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information).
> The UCoC is meant to be a minimum base for behavior (both positive and
> negative) to help communities build upon.
>
> As noted previously, there will be a review of not only the UCoC but the
> Enforcement Guidelines one year after ratification is completed. During
> that period, feedback, as well as examples will be worked through to ensure
> that both texts are fit for purpose and lessen any ambiguity folks may be
> having issues with.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stella
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Carla Toro 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm writing this on a personal note, but just to clarify, Doxing is under
>> the section of harassment, which is aligned with its definition of being
>> the act of revealing identifying information about someone online *with
>> the clear intention of harassing someone*. And I think I can use the
>> examples given by Andreas to throw light on what doxing is and what is not.
>>
>> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
>> This reveals contributors' employer and address, very likely without
>> their consent, on a page in Wikipedia. It's in direct contravention of the
>> above bullet point. Should this page exist?
>> - This is not Doxing, this is just a mechanism of transparency with the
>> government.
>>
>> 2.
>> https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916005/malaysian-crash-mh17-russia-ukraine-wikipedia-edit
>> This press article states that someone at a Russian TV network edited
>> Wikipedia to blame the MH17 plane crash on Ukraine. This therefore reveals
>> a contributor's employer and possibly also their work address. Is this
>> article harassment? Should any Wikipedians who may have tipped off the
>> journalist be punished?
>> - Not precisely Doxing. It may be harassment (maybe unintentionally) but
>> not from a Wikimedian. The article clearly states "Within an hour, someone
>> with an IP address that puts them at VGTRK's Moscow offices changed it to
>> say "The plane was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers."". So this was the
>> fault of the press by making the conection of the edit and the IP and the
>> disclousure of the information.
>>
>> 3.
>> https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/
>> This press article – which was instrumental in triggering a significant
>> change in the WMF terms of use, well before your time with the WMF of
>> course – comments on various contributors' employer, again in direct
>> contravention of the Doxing bullet point. Is this harassment? Should the
>> Wikipedians who "shared information concerning other contributors'
>> Wikimedia activity outside the projects", by speaking to the writer of this
>> article, be sanctioned under UCoC if they did the same today?
>> - They all used their users name and agree to that interview. They
>> weren't sharing information to harrass someone, they were talking about
>> their own investigation. If this was the case today, I think that they
>> should not be sanctioned but they should be carefull if it is an on going
>> investigation.
>>
>> 4. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbqjb/is-wikipedia-for-sale
>> In this article the late Kevin Gorman – who died much too young! – as
>> well as James Hare and a WMF staffer again "share information concerning
>> other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects", including
>> employment details. This is in direct contravention of the Doxing bullet
>> point, compliance with which you explained is a "minimum" standard that
>> participants will be held to.
>> -Same as 3.
>>
>> 5.
>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted
>> In this article a journalist writes about a Wikipedia editor – a fellow
>> journalist, as it 

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

[Lane Chance]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 21:45, Vi to  wrote:

> "lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" weren't
> addressed in your email at all, given that you're relying upon wrong
> premises by assuming checkusers' bad faith and non-existing practices.
>
>
The paragraph that starts with "If that's inconvenient for volunteer
checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support
service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements,
..." addressed this issue precisely, hence is why I referred to it. You
seem to have been reading a different email.

There were no assumptions about "non-existing practices" and it's not bad
faith to highlight that there are cases of checkusers that misused the
tools and have vanished or left the projects. Perhaps you can answer the
question about how many cases there have been?

Lane


> Vito
>
> Il giorno sab 23 apr 2022 alle ore 19:58 Lane Chance 
> ha scritto:
>
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:17, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lane,
>>>
>>> I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue
>>> before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe reading the facts in my email would be a good starting point. Your
>> response has not refuted any of those facts, in fact as a checkuser you no
>> doubt could confirm exactly how many times in the past checkuser tools have
>> been misused and how they are still open to being misused.
>>
>>
>>> gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to
>>> use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs
>>> are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE,
>>> it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure
>>> for current volunteers to handle those requests.
>>>
>>
>>  Declining was not mentioned and is not the issue. Alternatives for "lack
>> of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" was addressed in my
>> email. Lacking volunteers is not a reason to fail to provide access to new
>> joiners editing in good faith.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or
>>> local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could
>>> just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”,
>>> this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE
>>> so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in
>>> relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it
>>> to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it
>>> takes to do that human review.
>>>
>>>
>> No, it would not "make CU next to useless". If people are contributing as
>> part of editathons or similar, and if 100% of all their contributions are
>> valuable good faith contributions, nothing else should matter. Literally
>> they are not using the account for anything wrong, so why would anyone
>> care? It is not the job of checkusers to be secret police and see all new
>> joiners in bad faith, that is neither useful, nor a good use of volunteer
>> time.
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rae
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not
>>>> feasible."
>>>>
>>>> Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such
>>>> as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts
>>>> joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on
>>>> wikidata.
>>>>
>>>> "also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts
>>>> the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against
>>>> the safety of new and regular users.
>>>>
>>>> Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and
>>>> in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private
>>>> records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to
>>>> vanish without any serious consequences.
>>>>
>>>> Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment
>>>> or harassment by state actors whic

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

[Lane Chance]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:17, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Lane,
>
> I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue
> before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
>

Maybe reading the facts in my email would be a good starting point. Your
response has not refuted any of those facts, in fact as a checkuser you no
doubt could confirm exactly how many times in the past checkuser tools have
been misused and how they are still open to being misused.


> gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use
> proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are
> for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE,
> it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure
> for current volunteers to handle those requests.
>

 Declining was not mentioned and is not the issue. Alternatives for "lack
of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" was addressed in my
email. Lacking volunteers is not a reason to fail to provide access to new
joiners editing in good faith.



> What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or
> local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could
> just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”,
> this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE
> so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in
> relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it
> to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it
> takes to do that human review.
>
>
No, it would not "make CU next to useless". If people are contributing as
part of editathons or similar, and if 100% of all their contributions are
valuable good faith contributions, nothing else should matter. Literally
they are not using the account for anything wrong, so why would anyone
care? It is not the job of checkusers to be secret police and see all new
joiners in bad faith, that is neither useful, nor a good use of volunteer
time.


> Regards,
> Rae
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance  wrote:
>
>> "Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not
>> feasible."
>>
>> Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as
>> entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining
>> a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
>>
>> "also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts
>> the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against
>> the safety of new and regular users.
>>
>> Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and
>> in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private
>> records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to
>> vanish without any serious consequences.
>>
>> Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or
>> harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this
>> information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and
>> preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or
>> competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the
>> Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer
>> checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support
>> service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements,
>> even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary
>> verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state
>> lobbyists.
>>
>> Lane
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would
>>> also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to
>>> autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
>>>
>>> 
>>> User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on
>>> Wikimedia projects
>>> they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter
>>> <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to  wrote:
>>>
>>>> IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block
>>>> (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only.
>>&

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

[Lane Chance]

"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not
feasible."

Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as
entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining
a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.

"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the
convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the
safety of new and regular users.

Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in
the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records,
despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish
without any serious consequences.

Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or
harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this
information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and
preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or
competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the
Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer
checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support
service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements,
even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary
verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state
lobbyists.

Lane

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would
> also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to
> autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
>
> 
> User:Vermont  on Wikimedia
> projects
> they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter
> )
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
>> IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block
>> (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only.
>>
>> Expiration is an option, as for any global group.
>>
>> Vito
>>
>> Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan  ha
>> scritto:
>>
>>> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or similar)
>>> users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've
 followed closely the evolution of that problem.

 “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless
 mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if
 necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would
 case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different
 because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed
 by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that
 reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get
 out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who
 can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and
 IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to
 self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like
 edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in
 order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be
 solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).”

 Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to
 the metawiki page
 
  and
 understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way
 more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than
 losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the
 wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I
 also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation.
 Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current
 situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better
 reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but
 still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests
 (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals
 with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As
 Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and
 solutions.

 Best,
 DerHexer (Martin)

 Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ 

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

[Lane Chance]

A 'liberalization' of IPBE can easily be enabled by allowing WMF
funded projects to add this group to any participants that request it,
or even all participants in some editathons given the benefits of
editing from shared wifi or through a proxy in some countries where
editing Wikipedia may have personal risks.

Editathons in national museums or universities are often hampered, and
new joiners have significant amounts of time wasted when they find out
their edits made in a library of a cafe get rejected and they can
forget editing that day, or told to wait for a month or indefinitely
for a global steward to consider their request. The risks are almost
zero that someone actively contributing to a funded content creation
project would be a vandal. Even if this ever happened, their account
would be sanctioned without it becoming a stewards problem. Keep in
mind that stopping editing from internet cafes or libraries
disproportionately harms poorer people and those editing from
countries without the best technical infrastructure who otherwise have
to try to edit from a mobile phone and may end up paying to edit
rather than using the public free access.

The current system works against the stated values of the community
and causes unnecessary harm. Let's just get on with making adding
newbies to IPBE a normal part of good faith editing, and stop global
stewards and mass IP blocks, being a serious and unnecessary barrier
to good faith editors.

Lane

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 10:04, Željko Blaće  wrote:
>
> My 2 cents in this telegraph short email
>
> #1 it is a common situation in Bosnia and Croatia, likely in 
> other CEE countries of CEE where providers are 'cheap' with IP addresses. I 
> know an amazingly constructive and dedicated, but not proactive editor who 
> failed to get unblocked on EN, as he could not explain as a novice to EN 
> admins in 2015 that he was not a sock puppet . Loss is on our side.
>
> #2 This is a complex (and for outreach mission critical) problem that 
> requires real-time addressing and most likely a dedicated paid professionals 
> (better 4 x 50% across time zones) to take the burden off from voluntary 
> stewards and admins, but also to inform and educate those who could not 
> follow what are common network issues across different regions.
>
> Best, Z.
>
>
> ___
> 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/IOIXYDEWHOJXGSDPLSPM27NRR75M7YQL/
> 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/BUWW7XKVGAFXMJOK5VMMZCXL7W3U3SZI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Lane Chance]

It would make the UCoC easier to understand if there was a glossary on
the same page. A chosen definition of "race" or "ethnicity" being used
in the context of this policy document may not be the same as exists
in the reader's head, how they describe their own identity, or as
might be used on their local language Wikipedia. This could then be
the place to distinguish the relevance to the policy of race versus
racism.

In this thread we see stated as a fact that Jews are an ethnicity but
not a race, which could cause a big argument in its own right. See the
"Whoopi Goldberg" incident.

Lane

On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 01:19, Zachary T.  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think there's a misinterpretation here. Saying that race and ethnicity 
> aren't meaningful distinctions among people doesn't mean that racism doesn't 
> exist. That's a lot of negatives, but the way I see it, it's just recognizing 
> that race is in fact a social construct, and thus because of that it isn't 
> truly meaningful. I would suggest using inherently meaningful to clear up the 
> confusion here, because I think that more clearly expresses the sentiment.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:23 PM Maggie Dennis  wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Anasuya and Whose Knowledge.
>>
>>
>> (Context for those who don’t know me: I am the Vice President of Community 
>> Resilience & Sustainability, and among others I oversee the team shepherding 
>> the UCoC process.)
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much for raising this issue. Foundation staff have been 
>> discussing this as well with the same points that you have raised, and it is 
>> something we’ve been thinking about how to address.
>>
>>
>> As probably many of you know, the plan all along had been to get the UCoC 
>> policy, to get the enforcement approach, and then to see how they work 
>> together in operation. Our plan has been to review the policy and 
>> enforcement approach together a year after the ratification of Phase 2. 
>> However, we decided to prioritize a slower approach to Phase 2 to make sure 
>> it was functional out the gate especially for the functionaries and 
>> volunteers who enforce it, as a result of which the timeline we had imagined 
>> for Policy review has been considerably pushed back. If we had made our 
>> preliminary time plan, we would have started testing these out months ago. 
>> The Policy and Enforcement Guidelines would have been ripe for review 
>> sometime around November 2022.
>>
>>
>> As you all know, the vote has just concluded on the UCoC Phase 2. In the 
>> vote, community members were asked if they supported it as written or not, 
>> with the ability to provide feedback either way - with the notion that the 
>> feedback would help us focus on major blockers to the enforcement approach. 
>> I have already spoken to several members of the Board about some of the 
>> concerns that have been raised about the enforcement guidelines; we’ve 
>> spoken about this passage in the Policy, too. I know from my conversations 
>> with the Board that they want to get this done right, not just get it done - 
>> and they are very open to understanding these major blockers.
>>
>>
>> The project team is compiling a report for the Board on the challenging 
>> points surfaced during the vote. We think the enforcement guidelines are a 
>> very good first draft for the enforcement pathways, but–based on the 
>> comments we’ve seen–we are very aware there may be more work ahead before we 
>> reach a Board ratified version of those guidelines. As this passage in 
>> policy is not necessary to achieve the goal of the UCoC - which is to forbid 
>> harassment and attacks based on personal factors including race and 
>> ethnicity - our intention has been to recommend to the Board that the 
>> passage in question be reviewed simultaneously with any further Phase 2 
>> enforcement workshopping, instead of waiting for the “year in operation” 
>> review intended.
>>
>>
>> I still think it makes sense to review how the enforcement guideline and 
>> policy work together to see how they are functioning once they have a trial 
>> period. But I ALSO don’t think it makes any sense to hold off on reviewing a 
>> passage from policy that community members (including some community members 
>> who are Foundation staff) strongly agree may be actively harmful just 
>> because Phase 2 is taking longer than anticipated.
>>
>>
>> I also want to say that I have spoken to some of the individuals who were 
>> involved in writing the UCoC and understand fully that the intent of the 
>> composers was to avoid any implication that racism and ethnic bias are 
>> valid. As you said, Anasuya - honest intentions. I have spoken to many 
>> individuals who have felt personally hurt and erased by the phrase in 
>> denying their lived reality. I have also spoken to others who have feared 
>> that it makes it more difficult to talk about the actual harms of racism and 
>> ethnocentrism by implying that such topics are taboo to discuss.
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Apply to join the Leadership Development Working Group!

[Lane Chance]

In what way would it be bad to "publish [the analysis] to inform
future projects"?

Neither was it stated or implied in my email that stipends were to
"cover every cost", just to put $5/hour in context that it may be
enough to pay for a take-away, but it's not enough to cover anything
significant like childcare costs, which happens to be an explicitly
stated reason for paying a stipend on the meta page.

The question about whether variations, like claiming extra expenses
for childcare, is possible is a good one. By paying a fixed or nominal
stipend, at first glance it appears that expenses beyond this will not
be accepted by the WMF, which bakes in an obvious bias against
participation from some minority groups with reasonable additional
needs.

Lane

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 13:01, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> stipends aren't meant to cover every cost for the volunteer, its an 
> acknowledgement that as volunteers we do incur costs we can always choose not 
> to contribute. $200 a month yeah thats nice when your in the US, EU or AU for 
> other less well off countries it does make a difference for them.  It'd be 
> unfair to offer a stipend to be varied between countries because it'd 
> encourage and entrench bias, and inequity across the movement.
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 19:44, Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>> It's worth highlighting the stipend (presumably intended for otherwise
>> unpaid volunteers who are not full-time employees of the WMF). It's
>> $200 for "each 2 months" and covers costs of "childcare, internet,
>> transportation and other costs that make volunteering possible".
>>
>> The commitment is to give *5 hours a week* for a 1 year period, so
>> $100/month is approximately $5 an hour in costs. A rock bottom rate
>> for a babysitter in the USA would be $10/hour. If you need to travel
>> to a quiet workspace, like a friendly and entirely free library or
>> Uni, to do the work or find a cubical to join a Zoom meeting, then the
>> cost of transport is likely to again going to start at $10 and if you
>> need to buy a take-away to replace time preparing an evening meal
>> that's going to be $20 for something basic. Some countries in Europe
>> have government-supported childcare, but even these may not be free
>> but subsidized.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see more analysis of how volunteer stipends
>> are normalised if these are becoming more common in WMF grants and
>> project funding, and how they are intended to vary based on the
>> standard cost of living in different countries, additional real-life
>> receipted costs or what other circumstances will justify increasing
>> the non-receipted stipend. If this has been done behind the scenes by
>> the WMF, it would be useful to publish it to inform future projects.
>>
>> Lane
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 21:09, Cassie Casares  wrote:
>> >
>> > (Read this message in other languages on Meta-wiki: ‎العربية • Русский 
>> > •日本語 • 한국어)
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> >
>> > The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting 
>> > the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Working 
>> > Group. The purpose of the working group is to advise leadership 
>> > development work. Feedback was collected in February 2022 and a summary of 
>> > the feedback is on Meta-wiki. The application period to join the Working 
>> > Group is now open and is closing soon on April 10, 2022. Please review the 
>> > information about the working group, share with community members who 
>> > might be interested, and apply if you are interested.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> >
>> > The Community Development team
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cassie Casares
>> > Program Support Associate
>> > Community Development
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> > ccasa...@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/5KAMESN3GRQXS3UGC6AYUMOKMZVLV4MB/
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
>&g

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Apply to join the Leadership Development Working Group!

[Lane Chance]

It's worth highlighting the stipend (presumably intended for otherwise
unpaid volunteers who are not full-time employees of the WMF). It's
$200 for "each 2 months" and covers costs of "childcare, internet,
transportation and other costs that make volunteering possible".

The commitment is to give *5 hours a week* for a 1 year period, so
$100/month is approximately $5 an hour in costs. A rock bottom rate
for a babysitter in the USA would be $10/hour. If you need to travel
to a quiet workspace, like a friendly and entirely free library or
Uni, to do the work or find a cubical to join a Zoom meeting, then the
cost of transport is likely to again going to start at $10 and if you
need to buy a take-away to replace time preparing an evening meal
that's going to be $20 for something basic. Some countries in Europe
have government-supported childcare, but even these may not be free
but subsidized.

It would be interesting to see more analysis of how volunteer stipends
are normalised if these are becoming more common in WMF grants and
project funding, and how they are intended to vary based on the
standard cost of living in different countries, additional real-life
receipted costs or what other circumstances will justify increasing
the non-receipted stipend. If this has been done behind the scenes by
the WMF, it would be useful to publish it to inform future projects.

Lane

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 21:09, Cassie Casares  wrote:
>
> (Read this message in other languages on Meta-wiki: ‎العربية • Русский •日本語 • 
> 한국어)
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the 
> creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Working Group. 
> The purpose of the working group is to advise leadership development work. 
> Feedback was collected in February 2022 and a summary of the feedback is on 
> Meta-wiki. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and 
> is closing soon on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the 
> working group, share with community members who might be interested, and 
> apply if you are interested.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> The Community Development team
>
>
>
> Cassie Casares
> Program Support Associate
> Community Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ccasa...@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/5KAMESN3GRQXS3UGC6AYUMOKMZVLV4MB/
> 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/Q3322LTHJJDTI7YFL35A2PPY6QANKSV2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation governance and Russian finances

[Lane Chance]

"we do not support any government"? Nothing in my original email
indicated or presumed the Wikimedia Foundation supported any
government.

A governance review would be for the Wikimedia Foundation to define
the terms for. Taking into account legally binding sanctions and
governmental guidelines would be in the interest of the Wikimedia
Foundation. Ignoring sanctions from the US Government when your bank
account is in the USA and you are subject to US law would be reckless,
while ensuring that the Wikimedia Foundation understands how well they
and their board members and advisers comply with the law is not a sign
of "support" for a government.

Your emails assert statements in my original email that were not
there. Your reply made me appear to be attacking "the Russian people",
which you have not withdrawn. That is bad faith, especially
considering you do not know my connection to Russia. My original email
is fine, please do not put words in my mouth to make an argument.
That's neither informative nor civil, it's just a way to shut down a
public question rather than allowing a healthy discussion of good
financial governance and organisational transparency at the board
level.

Lane

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 09:51, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> As far as I am aware we do not support any government. We do not have 
> interests or investments that support any and all governments. So it is 
> wonderful that you are so happy for the WMF to spend effort on a hypothetical.
>
> As to taking offence, you apparently expect that you and your intentions are 
> self evident and you do not need to reciprocate those sentiments. Wonderful, 
> thank you for your interaction.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 10:02, Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>> A governance review to check where investments or interests "support
>> the actions of the Russian government" is nothing similar to calling
>> "The Russian people" an enemy.
>>
>> A Wikimedia Foundation review or independent assessment would sensibly
>> take into account sanctions and recommendations that governments in
>> the EU and USA have published for all their international trade with
>> Russia, and confirm there are no ethical or compliance conflicts for
>> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> Having a review is not "escalation", nor have I made any claim about
>> money being "well spent". A review is the simplest way to ensure
>> appropriate transparency.
>>
>> Please avoid making bad faith accusations of using a "page out of the
>> playbook" of escalation when they have done no such thing. It is
>> manipulative and unwelcome when you know nothing about who you are
>> attacking.
>>
>> Lane
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to grasp 
>> > that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or in 
>> > Russia by the "powers that be".
>> >
>> > When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference 
>> > between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform 
>> > people. Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we 
>> > consider the war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view 
>> > that we should provide as long as we can.
>> >
>> > The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not. 
>> > Our money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the 
>> > Russian people, all the money spent is well spent.
>> >
>> > We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation. We 
>> > should not because of what we stand for.
>> > Thanks,
>> >  GerardM
>> >
>> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Several organizations, including pension companies, have been
>> >> withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war
>> >> in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of
>> >> directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests
>> >> and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical
>> >> values of the organisation they represent.
>> >>
>> >> Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the
>> >> Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of
>> >> people (including trustees and advisers), received donat

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation governance and Russian finances

[Lane Chance]

A governance review to check where investments or interests "support
the actions of the Russian government" is nothing similar to calling
"The Russian people" an enemy.

A Wikimedia Foundation review or independent assessment would sensibly
take into account sanctions and recommendations that governments in
the EU and USA have published for all their international trade with
Russia, and confirm there are no ethical or compliance conflicts for
the Wikimedia Foundation.

Having a review is not "escalation", nor have I made any claim about
money being "well spent". A review is the simplest way to ensure
appropriate transparency.

Please avoid making bad faith accusations of using a "page out of the
playbook" of escalation when they have done no such thing. It is
manipulative and unwelcome when you know nothing about who you are
attacking.

Lane

On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to grasp 
> that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or in Russia 
> by the "powers that be".
>
> When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference 
> between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform people. 
> Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we consider the 
> war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view that we should 
> provide as long as we can.
>
> The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not. Our 
> money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the Russian 
> people, all the money spent is well spent.
>
> We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation. We 
> should not because of what we stand for.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>> Several organizations, including pension companies, have been
>> withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war
>> in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of
>> directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests
>> and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical
>> values of the organisation they represent.
>>
>> Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the
>> Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of
>> people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing
>> funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or
>> unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government?
>>
>> As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture
>> capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not
>> find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial
>> interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there
>> is none or has never been any.
>>
>> References
>> https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board
>> https://www.cendanacapital.com
>> https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-securities-in-active-and-index-funds
>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-russian-linked-investments-in-protest
>>
>> Lane
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W7SRE4UXETS44TS4633FER7Z6M2HO52Z/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgwriting
>
> ___
> 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/XFBZGIP3V32O4TPFCEJCD2Q6LZTA3EUB/
> 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/BD3JBSJSCHKTZKZE7AW74CVLFO6OUCV2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation governance and Russian finances

[Lane Chance]

Several organizations, including pension companies, have been
withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war
in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of
directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests
and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical
values of the organisation they represent.

Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the
Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of
people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing
funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or
unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government?

As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture
capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not
find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial
interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there
is none or has never been any.

References
https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board
https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board
https://www.cendanacapital.com
https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-securities-in-active-and-index-funds
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-russian-linked-investments-in-protest

Lane
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W7SRE4UXETS44TS4633FER7Z6M2HO52Z/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review

[Lane Chance]

Xeno,

Question 1 - ratification failure
Could you explain more clearly what happens if the ratification
process fails to get 50% support?
"If the majority of voters oppose the adoption of the guidelines as
written, they will be asked which elements need to be changed and
why"[1] gives no clue about timeline or if anything else than minor
changes and resubmitting six months later would be tried or tried
multiple times.

Question 2 - the role of Arbcoms
Hopefully you and the Board understand that though you "strongly
support" the "Open Letter from Arbcoms",[2] Arbcoms do not represent
the many minorities in our global community and case studies clearly
demonstrate they do not represent minority groups by their majority
vote nature. How will this bias be balanced if Arbcoms are so involved
behind the scenes in the UCoC enforcement, which may include
correcting or overruling cases where an Arbcom has already been
involved and have conflicts of interest?

Does the UCoC drafting team understand "politically" elected groups
like the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom represents a strong anti-minority
group bias in their own right, something that cannot be corrected by
just having more majority votes, a bias that the UCoC is supposed to
help correct? An example is the hostile and attacking responses to the
recent meta RFC to ban a Russian blatantly anti-LGBTQ lobbyist and
vandal which provides an excellent case study for why a committee that
only represents majority views gives outcomes that drive out minority
groups from Wikimedia projects and has failed to change this despite
complaints and protest over many years.[3]

1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/January_2022_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Community_ratification_of_enforcement_guidelines_of_UCoC
2. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees
3. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_1Goldberg2


On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 22:43, Xeno (Jack)  wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has provided an update on the 
> ratification process for the updated Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) 
> Enforcement guidelines [1]. In the next few weeks, the UCoC project team will 
> provide more information on how to participate in the ratification process. 
> The timeline has been updated on Meta [2] as the UCoC project team prepares 
> for the voting process that will take place in early March.
>
>
> To help to understand the process better, the Movement Strategy and 
> Governance (MSG) team will be hosting Conversation Hours on the 4th of 
> February 2022 at 15:00 UTC, and also on the 4th of March 2022 (exact time to 
> be announced). We are urging everyone to join the conversation hours and 
> dialogue with the UCoC project team on the voting process [3].
>
>
> In the meantime, please take a look at the revised and translated Guidelines 
> [4] that the drafting committee has been hard at work on over the last few 
> months to improve and clarify.  There is a comparison page if you would like 
> to see the changes to the guidelines since the draft review last year [5]. 
> You can leave your comments on the talk page as well [6].
>
>
> Finally, the UCoC and MSG teams want to deeply thank the Drafting Committee 
> for their hard work and dedication in finding equitable ways of applying the 
> UCoC in ways that work for both our growing and more established community 
> processes across the movement.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Xeno (WMF)
> Facilitator, Movement Strategy and Governance
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/January_2022_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Community_ratification_of_enforcement_guidelines_of_UCoC
> [2] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Project#Timeline
> [3] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Roundtable_discussions
> [4] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines
> [5] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Changes
> [6] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines
> ___
> 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/5YDHN744SCICE3IJAIC6F54OSGEDBASP/
> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[Lane Chance]

Dariusz, Chair of the BGC: "Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a
factor here – the Governance Committee, and then the Board, were
considering other things..."

This is so wrong it's painful to read. The fundamental job of the
Governance Committee is to ensure that appointed trustees do not come with
the potential to cause harm to the Wikimedia 'brand' and the community.

A WMF trustee that promotes Bitcoin and NFTs? Compare with the WMF
statement "We at the Wikimedia Foundation strive to ensure that our work
and mission support a sustainable world" - now in the bin as it lacks any
credibility from here on, as the governance committee and therefore the
board of trustees does not believe in these values. This is not a
successful appointment, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio is not welcome as they are a
controversial and damaging addition to the board.

Ref:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:40, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Dear Dan,
>
> Thank you for the feedback!
>
> The search for a trustee with an expertise in product and technology began
> a few months ago. One of the problems we identified was that the Wikimedia
> Foundation CTOs (Chief Technology Officer) are usually not staying for a
> long period of time, and then there was also a CPO (Chief Product Officer)
> transition. It was also important that the new CEO (Chief Executive
> Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience and
> leadership in the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with the
> understanding and experience of how technology and communities can work
> together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is very relevant.
>
> The other critical factor was diversity – the search was prioritizing
> candidates with experience outside of Silicon Valley, in non-English
> speaking countries, preferably from the Global South.
>
> And, of course, we also needed a commitment to spend enough time on the
> Board work – to be engaged and present. For example, Luis met online and
> offline with Wikimedia volunteers from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking
> communities, he is eager to help us with his knowledge and experience.
> Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a factor here – the Governance
> Committee, and then the Board, were considering other things Luis brings to
> the table, the needed expertise, diversity and commitment.
>
> I personally am not particularly fond of cryptocurrencies, even though I
> appreciate blockchain as a technology, and support e.g. decentralized
> science (https://decentralized.science/). We as a movement have not had a
> uniform stand on this, and I’m not sure if we should, though.
>
> Best regards,
> Dariusz (chair of the BGC)
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:40 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the update, Nataliia. Knowledge and expertise in product and
>> technology is a skill set that has been lacking on the Board, and it's
>> great to see the Board addressing this by co-opting product and technology
>> leaders. Luis's experience, such as his time at reddit, will likely be very
>> applicable to our movement.
>>
>> However, I'm surprised that the Board chose to co-opt someone who seems
>> to have such a public focus on technology like blockchains and
>> cryptocurrency, and that this focus of his was omitted from this
>> announcement.
>>
>> It would be helpful if we could hear from Luis how he intends to use his
>> knowledge and expertise to contribute to the movement as a Board member,
>> and to what extent he considers blockchain and cryptocurrency to factor
>> into that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 17:20, Nataliia Tymkiv 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Please join me in welcoming Luis Bitencourt-Emilio to the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation Board of Trustees. Luis was unanimously appointed to a 3-year
>>> term and replaces a board-selected Trustee, Lisa Lewin, whose term ended in
>>> November 2021 [1].
>>>
>>> Currently based in São Paulo, Luis is the Chief Technology Officer at
>>> Loft, a technology startup in the real-estate industry. He brings product
>>> and technology experience from a globally diverse career that has spanned
>>> large technology companies including Microsoft, online networking sites
>>> like Reddit, and a series of entrepreneurial technology ventures focused in
>>> the USA and Latin America. Luis has led product and technology teams across
>>> Latin America, the United States, Europe and Asia. He is passionately
>>> involved in building and promoting the entrepreneurial ecosystem for Latin
>>> American-based startups.
>>>
>>> Luis has more than two decades of experience across product development,
>>> software engineering, and data science. At Microsoft, he led engineering
>>> teams shipping multiple Microsoft Office products. At Reddit, he led the
>>> Knowledge Group, an engineering team that owned critical functions such as
>>> data, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations

[Lane Chance]

Hi Leila,

What are the requirements for evidence of peer review and the quality of
editorial oversight for the published research, or are you accepting
nominations of unreviewed research so long as it's printed in a "scholarly
publication", for example, a letter or report rather than a paper?

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 02:55, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
> more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
> to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
> of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
> the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
> this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
> "scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
> that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
> translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
> in-time for the review.
>
> Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
> scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
> think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
> even if I can't guarantee that we review it.
>
> I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
> cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
> cycles.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Leila,
> > I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
> > 
> > From: Leila Zia 
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Cc: wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org>; Discussion list for the Wikidata
> project. 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia
> Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
> >
> > Hi Galder,
> >
> > Please see below.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
> >
> > Anytime.
> >
> > > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia Foundation
> Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the WMF (
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in your
> answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research
> published in English". I understand that the main working language of the
> WMF is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award
> promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.
> >
> > Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
> > WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
> > https://twitter.com/WikiResearch . I did not intend to refer to the
> > WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
> > is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
> > There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.
> >
> > > Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia
> activities in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not
> the English Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated
> lingua franca may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is
> not made in this language from an Award. I would understand if the
> (non-existing) English Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in
> English Award of the Year", but is not the case.
> >
> > I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
> > of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
> > can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
> > end: I have a todo to come back to you all.
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Galder
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Leila Zia 
> > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
> > > To: wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List ;
> Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia
> Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
> > >
> > > Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
> > > genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
> > > better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
> > > feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
> > >
> > > * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your
> feedback.
> > >
> > > * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
> > > to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
> > > award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
> > > authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
> > > 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: RfC: Stop accepting cryptocurrency donations

[Lane Chance]

If you live in China or the USA, no payment system is guaranteed invisible
from state agents. There is no reason to believe that cryptocurrency
transactions going in or out of countries with sophisticated security
agencies could be any more anonymous or trustworthy than, say, an anonymous
payment using Paypal.

At the same time, the Wikimedia Foundation has legal and ethical
obligations to not benefit from the proceeds of crime nor use its donations
to fund crime, human rights abuse, or terrorism. Though it can choose to
respect the anonymity of donors as requested during the donation process it
is required to cooperate with US legal investigations which may make
complete anonymity impossible especially for large donations or large
projects that it provides money or chooses to invest its slush fund in.

It would be great if the Wikimedia Foundation made a clear and measurable
statement about its financial policies beyond vague statements that human
rights are nice, or that money laundering is bad.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 12:37, Nickanc Wikimedia 
wrote:

> I am honestly shocked about how the whole discussion does not touch the
> fact that for many people in many countries supporting wikimedia is
> politically inconvenient and doing so in a very transparent way such as
> through the banking system might result in a backslash from the authorities.
>
> We should first of all be neutral towards our readers on the question "do
> you trust the state?", if their answer is no, a covert zero-trust way to
> donate should be available.
>
> Il Mar 11 Gen 2022, 04:25 GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have created an RfC at Meta to discuss no longer accepting
>> cryptocurrency donations. You can read the proposal, discuss, and vote at
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations
>> .
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Molly White (User:GorillaWarfare)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
>> she/her
>>
>>
___
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/YLL6PM4N4EBKUILIXJH6EILOZXN5EJZB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Lane Chance]

Apart from mindless news sources that regurgitated the Christies PR, more
recent journalism has in the headlines "triggers controversy", "editors
very mad", "some Wikipedians are pissed".

Of these, the presentation by Slate seems even-handed good quality
journalism, presenting the facts, the community response and getting direct
comments from Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation.

It seems unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation board, the WMF governance
team, or the new Chief Executive could say that they handled this well, or
gave one of their own Trustees good advice. Many will flag this as an
obvious failure by the WMF board of trustees to be seen to exercise good
governance over their brand and reputation, certainly, it's not a "success".

References for quoted headlines:
*
https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/jimmy-wales-birth-of-wikipedia-nft-auction.html
*
https://newsable.asianetnews.com/technology/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-announces-auction-of-his-first-edit-as-nft-gcw-r3ujni
*
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit


On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 18:38, Yair Rand  wrote:

> Criticism of the process:
> * No public consultation or even announcement was done before the policy
> was finalized. No opportunity to influence the outcome was given.
> * The policy was preceded by a human rights impact assessment,
> commissioned by the WMF. The report was given to the WMF in July, but has
> still not been made public.
> * No details are given on the mentioned "Human Rights Steering Committee",
> including structure or membership.
> * It looks like the policy wasn't even proofread before approval, and is
> exceedingly ambiguous in parts.
> * The policy is stated to act as a "North Star" guiding the efforts of
> other parts of the movement as well, ignoring the WMF's actual position
> relative to the other groups and where movement guidance actually comes
> from.
>
> Given the level of disassociation between this process and Wikimedia, it's
> hard to tell how to interpret these events. This looks to me like another
> example of the WMF simultaneously marginalizing itself from the movement
> while also pushing itself as a greater portion of activities. This is a
> problem.
>
> (The merits of the actual text are separate from the process issues, and
> this criticism should not be taken as a position on the correctness/value
> of such a policy.)
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 9 בדצמ׳ 2021 ב-10:25 מאת ‪Richard Gaines‬‏ <‪
> rgai...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce
>> the approval of the Human Rights Policy
>> 
>> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
>> 
>> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
>> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
>> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
>> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
>> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
>> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
>> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
>> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
>> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
>> coming weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
>> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> rgai...@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/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
>> 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/GPDWKPOTFL37XW22QF7GEMBE22AL4GFJ/
> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Lane Chance]

Nice to hear about the excitement.

It looks like reading the policy and checking links in the supplied
document would take around 45 minutes to do thoroughly, plus joining the
meeting with the two WMF teams would take another hour. It is unfortunate
that the invitation is with less than 1 days notice, given a single
one-hour meeting which will be in the middle of the working day for most
volunteers, and as the document is already approved by the board, it seems
that anything a volunteer might say regardless how interesting, will have
no realistic chance of resulting in any changes being agreed.

Could the management responsible for this extremely short timeline and lack
of any previous consultation before approval (the document being made
public for the first time only hours before this email today, and only
after board approval in secret), explain why this is happening this way,
which will put off volunteer comments, and ensure that there will be very
little volunteer feedback?

Please ensure it is understood that a lack of volunteers turning up to the
meeting tomorrow, is a sign of exclusion by the WMF, not agreement, nor a
lack of interest in the issues that may arise from this publication.

Thank you.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 15:25, Richard Gaines  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
> approval of the Human Rights Policy
> 
> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
> 
> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
> coming weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
> rgai...@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/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
> 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/4ZHL77LV72C3AM2ZWK4KTPFJNRA4QNO6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Auction at Christie's

[Lane Chance]

I don't understand how a Wikimedia trustee using Wikimedia websites,
Wikimedia branding, and this Wikimedia supported email list to promote a
funding event for their own commercial project, i.e. "WT:Social", fits with
the bylaws which include:
"The property of this Foundation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable
purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this Foundation shall
ever inure to the benefit of any Trustee or officer thereof or to the
benefit of any private individual other than compensation in a reasonable
amount to its officers, employees, and contractors for services rendered."
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws

Could someone explain why the Wikimedia Foundation gave permission to one
of their trustees to do this in contravention of their own bylaws?

Hopefully asking questions does not automatically get you branded as an
"idealogue" or "attention-seeker".

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 00:20, Nathan  wrote:

> I too expected a stronger reaction from the rigid idealogues and the
> attention-seekers (although I see that did indeed occur on-wiki, courtesy
> of the same old grandstanding admins), and thought the minimal response was
> perhaps a sign of progress!
>
> Might just be disinterest and the ever-shrinking profile of Wikimedia-L.
>
___
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/PDGVF6Q3FN7RNCZNUCKBAMUHVF24WHPI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Lane Chance]

It would have been nice to see a list without many long term "names" who
will by default be entrenched in current systems and group think.

It's great that old timers, and those who have careers within the WMF or
Affiliates are involved and help with reviews, but it is worth considering
the benefits of taking a step back, to give alternative voices some room
and which might result in more credible changes and positive outcomes.

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 12:15, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I tend to agree that this was a failed process especially around the
> affiliate selections because once the selector was chosen there was no
> input by the affiliates as to who was chosen to represent them. I think it
> would have been much better for each affiliate region to have chosen their
> representative first rather than choose one person who would have no
> obligation to consult before making any decisions. That part of the process
> might well have been to pick a dozen random people to make a choice.
>
> As for the heavy bias to North America and Europe its a self fulfilling
> prophecy as it is the same regions who get most of high profile community
> committee positions as well as get to attend most events in person with
> capacity to build reputations and personal ties. Ironically the IGC was
> intended to build the GC instead we got this some which is greater than
> than a GC and will have a deeper impact so its only fair to expect a lot of
> concerns around the process and how it will impact the outcomes.
>
> The reality is that the GC should have been created, and the Movement
> Charter should then be created by them, the items should be separate
> concepts.
>
> Where ever it goes from here my biggest concern is the MCDC doesnt have
> any practical support for record keeping and no finances to ensure its even
> able to appropriately consult yet theres still an expectation to produce
> something that will more than just represent everyone
>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 18:28, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
>> regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
>> case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
>> software.
>> Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
>> repeating ;-)
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>>
>>> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
>>> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
>>> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
>>> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
>>> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
>>> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>>>
>>> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I
>>> am sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me.
>>> The entire selection process depended on only one selector per region.
>>> There was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
>>> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
>>> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
>>> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
>>> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
>>> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
>>> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
>>> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
>>> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
>>> selectors, that might not happened.
>>>
>>> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
>>> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
>>> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
>>> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
>>> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
>>> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
>>> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
>>> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
>>> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
>>> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
>>> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
>>> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bodhisattwa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>>
 Dear