On 8/27/09 6:43 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> I agree. Inward facing communication has long been a problem for
> WMF.
> At times there have been board members that took more leadership in this
> area regarding various issues, but I can't remember a time when this
> hasn't been an issue. I think it is mo
On 8/27/09 9:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell:
>> If the results of this kind of study have good agreement with
>> mechanical proxy metrics (such as machine detected vandalism) our
>> confidence in those proxies will increase, if they disagree it will
>> provide an opportunit
2009/8/28 Michael Snow :
> As the portion of your email making that caveat did not appear until
> after quoting another portion of Ting's message, suggesting that it
> would be addressing some other aspect of the discussion, I missed that
> you had hedged what seemed to be a pretty plain statement.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Michael Snow :
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
The best examples you can see are Stu West and Jan-Bard de
Vreede. Stu with his technical and financial expertise is simply there,
in every meeting, in the board mailing list, we don't have to go out
2009/8/28 Geoffrey Plourde :
> There can only be one leader in a business.
Not true at all. There are often lots of people leading different
things. The leader of all the leaders is the board, which isn't one
person, it is a committee.
___
foundation-l
There can only be one leader in a business.
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:26:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion
2009/8/27 Geoffrey Plourde :
> Well, I have never
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, Anthony, do you still refrain from editing Wikimedia
> projects over licensing
> issues? How long has it been, a year?
I guess now is as good a time as any to admit it. I started editing again,
without logging in, about a mon
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Just took a quick sample of 10 instances of vandalism to [[Ted Stevens]].
> Of those 10 instances of vandalism, either 2 or 4 would not have been
> found
> by the automated tool described. 2 if every edit summary containing the
> word "vandalism
2009/8/28 Ting Chen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> That's only because we don't specify such an obligation. There is
>> nothing stopping us having such an obligation included in the rules
>> for the advisory board.
>>
> Yes there are. See my answer to Antony about dedication.
I did see your answer. I
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> That's only because we don't specify such an obligation. There is
> nothing stopping us having such an obligation included in the rules
> for the advisory board.
>
Yes there are. See my answer to Antony about dedication.
> Brion and Véronique have that expertise and could
Just took a quick sample of 10 instances of vandalism to [[Ted Stevens]].
Of those 10 instances of vandalism, either 2 or 4 would not have been found
by the automated tool described. 2 if every edit summary containing the
word "vandalism" is counted as vandalism, and 4 if not. The former would
p
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> I suggested a better approach last time we had this thread: statistical
> sampling.
This research was based on a sample. What are you talking about?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> >> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about
> the
> >> >> severity of vandalism.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
>> >> severity of vandalism.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
>>
>> That's not
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
> >> severity of vandalism.
> >>
> >
> > Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
>
> That's not practical.
I never said it w
2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell :
> This is somewhat labor intensive, but only somewhat as it doesn't take
> an inordinate number of samples to produce representative results.
> This should be the gold standard for this kind of measurement as it
> would be much closer to what people actually want to know
2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
>> severity of vandalism.
>>
>
> Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
That's not practical. That would require a person to go through
article histories revision by revision, probabl
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
>>> > "how bad is vandalism" by ass
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the
> question
> >> > "how bad
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> >
>> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
>> > "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
>>
>> Can
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
> > "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
>
> Can you suggest a better metric
2009/8/28 Stephen Bain :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see any sufficient benefit to
>> releasing the data to make it worth the risk. Why do people want this
>> information? Is it just because they don't trust the vote count?
>
> B
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see any sufficient benefit to
> releasing the data to make it worth the risk. Why do people want this
> information? Is it just because they don't trust the vote count?
Because they know in their hearts t
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
> "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
Can you suggest a better metric then?
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com
_
2009/8/27 Michael Snow :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> The best examples you can see are Stu West and Jan-Bard de
>>> Vreede. Stu with his technical and financial expertise is simply there,
>>> in every meeting, in the board mailing list, we don't have to go out and
>>> ask someone from the outside, e
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> The best examples you can see are Stu West and Jan-Bard de
>> Vreede. Stu with his technical and financial expertise is simply there,
>> in every meeting, in the board mailing list, we don't have to go out and
>> ask someone from the outside, especially because these experti
2009/8/27 Ting Chen :
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>>
>>> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
>>> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
>>> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
>> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
>> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in
>> discussion
--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Kropotkine_113 wrote:
> From: Kropotkine_113
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to
> Wikimedia Foundation
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 7:53 AM
> Thank you very much all of you
> (Brigitte
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > I agree that companies often misuse the term "partner" for people who
> aren't
> > actually "partners" (although I can't think of an example, can you?).
>
> Big banks often do it. I remember reading a news article abou
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Kropotkine_113 wrote:
> I think that a non-used but very efficient
> solution would be to share informations before the official report and
> to work closely with local chapters ; but this is a more wide problem
> and slightly out-of-the-scope of this thread.
I agr
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> I agree that companies often misuse the term "partner" for people who aren't
> actually "partners" (although I can't think of an example, can you?).
Big banks often do it. I remember reading a news article about Goldman
Sachs announcing its new batch of partners. They were al
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> /rvv?|revert(ing)?[ ]*(vandal(ism)?)?/
>
> Might give you a slightly wider sample.
I'll wait for Robert to release a random sample of edits he actually
identified as "reverts" and/or the actual scripts and data dump he used.
__
2009/8/27 Geoffrey Plourde :
> Well, I have never understood why the board is so involved. Generally in
> business, the Board hires and fires the CEO and that's it.
I don't think that is the case. The board has a duty of oversight and
is generally responsible for high level decisions about the di
Well, I have never understood why the board is so involved. Generally in
business, the Board hires and fires the CEO and that's it.
I also consider expert seats a waste of space as that is why we have department
heads.
Then again, I suspect I am and always will be in the minority.
_
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> "Partner" has different meanings. A partner in a partnership is as you
> describe. A partner is a large (often public) company like a bank is
> just a title for a high ranking employee. I think we are talking at
> cross purposes. If Matt is
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>>> overwhelming majority, though.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>> overwhelming majority, though.
>
>
> I don't know about th
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
>> > I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
>> > According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
>>
>> I think partners usually are employees, jus
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > Why do you assume that number of reverts has any correlation with amount
> of
> > vandalism? Has this been studied?
>
> It seems to be a sensible assumption, although checking it would be
> wise.
It seems to me to b
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> Why do you assume that number of reverts has any correlation with amount of
> vandalism? Has this been studied?
It seems to be a sensible assumption, although checking it would be
wise. I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
reverts of vandalism rather
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> I've just read two different news stories on Flagged Revisions that
> described vandalism as a "growing problem" for Wikipedia.
>
> With that in mind, I would like to highlight one specific point in the
> analysis I just did.
>
> The frequenc
1:00 edit1:02 revert
1:06 revert
1:14 revert
1:30 revert
2:02 revert
How many instances of "vandalism" does your program count there, and what is
the mean and median time to revert?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscri
I've just read two different news stories on Flagged Revisions that
described vandalism as a "growing problem" for Wikipedia.
With that in mind, I would like to highlight one specific point in the
analysis I just did.
The frequency of reverts to articles -- as a fraction of total edits
-- has rem
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
>> > I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
>> > According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
>>
>> I think partn
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
> > According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
>
> I think partners usually are employees, just ones with a stake in the
>
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
> According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
I think partners usually are employees, just ones with a stake in the business.
___
founda
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Joshua Gay :
> > When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
> > Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
>
> I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be
> illegal.
very interesting research - many thanks for sharing that.
- "Robert Rohde" wrote:
> From: "Robert Rohde"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Thursday, 27 August, 2009 17:41:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Frequency of Seeing Bad V
Recently, I reported on a simple study of how likely one was to
encounter recent vandalism in Wikipedia based on selecting articles at
random and using revert behavior as a proxy for recent vandalism.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054171.html
One of the key limitat
2009/8/27 Ting Chen :
> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in
> discussion. As an advisory board member you are not obliged to do
2009/8/27 Gregory Maxwell :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> I think part of the problem is that there were some odd ideas about
>> how the Advisory Board would work. For example, it has a chair. I
>> can't work out why. Why would the advisory board ever meet as a grou
We always wanted to collaborate with scientific journals and projects,
regardless of its size. But remember that we can't use EOL images unless
they're from Flickr or Wikipedia, which means we probably have uploaded them to
Commons already.
Perhaps we should give the Main Page a facelift, sho
2009/8/27 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/8/27 Joshua Gay :
>> When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
>> Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
>
> I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be
> illegal. A trustee has a legal obligatio
2009/8/27 Joshua Gay :
> When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
> Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be
illegal. A trustee has a legal obligation to do what they think is
best for
> Wikispecies will have a niche if it can prove to be regularly on the
> leading edge.
>
> Has there been any discussions about putting newly described species
> onto the front page? If the information is made accessible, Wikinews
> editors could write up stories about new discoveries.
Too many
Andrew,
This is a great response and anecdote.
I have regularly run across people working on EOL, which has a broad
staff one of whose tasks is to keep an eye on species-data resources
around the web; and they are generally quite positive about
wikispecies, and thinking about ways to better colla
The press release Q&A,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_August_2009QA
, notes the following:
"Wikimedia and Omidyar have developed targets related to financial
sustainability (the percentage of operating expenses supported by
individual donations), global re
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>
> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in
> discussion. As an advisory board m
Thank you very much all of you (Brigitte SB, Ting Chen, Mickael Snow and
others).
To close my participation in this thread I just add three points :
- My question about the wikimedia membership criterion wasn't very
important, but just-to-know ; thanks for your explanations.
- The communication
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When I read that people with a seat on the board aren't supposed to be
>> paid,
>> I hope you mean that they are not paid by the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> When I read that people with a seat on the board aren't supposed to be
> paid,
> I hope you mean that they are not paid by the Wikimedia Foundation.
No, what I mean is they aren't supposed to be paid *for being board
members*. At least
Hoi.
When I read that people with a seat on the board aren't supposed to be paid,
I hope you mean that they are not paid by the Wikimedia Foundation. Because
the alternative is that all people on the board have to independently
wealthy and if that is the case I am relieved that I only just lost fro
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
> Omidyar Network.
That's quite an accusation. WMF board members aren't supposed to be paid.
If they're paid by a third party, is that okay?
> So, yes, I think ON has
Hi Thomas,
one year ago when I run for the board election I came with the same
proposal as you. Meanwhile I have changed my oppinion. The problem is
that this would not work out.
I totally agree with you that voting is the minor part of the board
decision making process. Actually in many cases
When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
> [Matt Halprin] has important nonprofit experience, serving on the boards of
> organizations like DonorsChoose.org and the Sunlight Foundation.
Just remember that he was
On 27 Aug 2009, at 03:46, Michael Snow wrote:
> Kropotkine_113 wrote:
>> Does he fulfill the Nomitanig Commitee selection criterion :
>> "Membership
>> in the Wikimedia community" ?
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nominating_Committee/
>> Selection_criteria#General_needed_traits
>>
> Ting al
68 matches
Mail list logo
