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

2019-01-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
considered actions from list moderators to reduce the number of notifications like this one. -Pete -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]] on meta etc. On 1/16/19 11:04 AM, Lane Rasberry wrote: Risker raises the point of moderating research requests. I do not want to comment on this survey

Re: [Wikimedia-l] +28K images freed from Israel archives and uploaded to commons

2018-11-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
That's wonderful news. For those of us who don't speak Hebrew, can you say a bit more about how this project came about? -Pete On Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 10:16 PM Hello, > > It is a great pleasure for me to let you all know that wikimedia Israel > had developed a web scraper that crawled in various

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

2017-03-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, It's unusual, and discouraged by the IRS (the United States' tax agency), for board members to be paid. I won't get into details, but I think this is a good thing, as it's tough to avoid conflict of interest when earning money from an entity you're seeking to get funding for. You can read a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

2017-02-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
I want to chime in briefly, since I have direct personal experience in WMF0-initiated bans. Not long ago, Support & Safety took an action to exclude somebody for whom I, as a volunteer, felt some responsibility. Initially, I felt that there was inadequate communication with me, and as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/07/2017 12:07 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote: Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the most recent few hundred editors with contributions at least a year old, to get an accurate answer. Will a respected member of the community please do this? I would like to know what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/07/2017 04:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, When we learned that one of our own was in a prison in Syria, we could not care less. A lot of words were spend on expressing how sad it was but no, we could do nothing about this because this would be "political". For me it is proof how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/06/2017 11:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM Gerard, You may of course continue to assert what the "huha with no banner" proves. I happen to disagree,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-02-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/06/2017 12:43 AM, Christophe Henner wrote: I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the core of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill battle, but I feel strongly that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2017-02-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/06/2017 11:53 AM, Pine W wrote: Hi Christophe, You wrote, "This delegates authority, not responsability." Perhaps you could explain the distinction. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand. Pine, I disagree. I have had plenty of jobs where I had the authority to do something, but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

2017-02-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/05/2017 10:10 PM, Michelle Paulson wrote: Dear All, We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-02-04 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk wrote: What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. On 01/27/2017 09:54 AM, Danny Horn wrote: Your idea for using

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

2017-02-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
I strongly support keeping messages without a clear connection to Wikimedia's purpose off this list -- especially when multiple people have already objected to a certain topic. I am as worried about world politics and the future as anybody on this list, but Wikimedia has a fairly clear mission

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 01/25/2017 09:52 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!). :) I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion about authority. I was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anna Stillwell wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: Anna, Pete, Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahea

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anna, Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right? If so, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
ess pulls > the > > > > > > > organization > > > > > > > > in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even > worse, > > > > when > > > > > a > > > > > > > > funder pays for something outside o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

2017-01-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total), but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing, the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the focus on this issue! If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

2016-12-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
t; Wikimedia_Survey_2014_English_Fundraiser.pdf > ] > [3 > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/ef/ > Report.WikimediaJapan.f.071916.pdf > ] > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, N

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

2016-12-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon wrote: > > Finally we didn't get any interest in our fundraising feedback and design > sessions last week and the week before so they were put on hold, however if > there are individuals who are interested in taking part in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost – Volume 12, Issue 29 – 26 November 2016

2016-11-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
ht into recent, politics-heavy readership. * If you haven't seen them, you'll enjoy the winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth (republished from the Wikimedia blog), and the country-level nominees from Wiki Loves Monuments. Happy reading, -Pete -- Pete Forsyth Editor in Chief The Signpost en.wikipedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

2016-11-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to > board members at any time". To Jimmy and the board: This statement is, frankly, very much belied by the facts. In 2014, I delivered

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor safety and anonymity: ending IP address exposure?

2016-11-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
A fully enumerated list of "cons" would be an important place to start. Wikimedians and WMF have long promoted the existence of stuff ike the "Congress edits" twitter account, which reports account-less edits from capitol hill. We often block high school IP addresses at certain times in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Personal Update

2016-11-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
ov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dan, I disagree. Three points: > > 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody resign; > nobody on this list has asked her to resign. Best not to exaggerate. > > 2. It is true that t

[Wikimedia-l] Exploring challenging topics in Wikimedia history: Belfer Center post mortem

2016-10-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
In my view, the Wikimedia movement and the WMF often miss important opportunities to fully examine significant controversies in our history. It's an important practice, and can help parties who disagree absorb lessons, develop a shared understanding of what happened, and avoid causing similar

[Wikimedia-l] New edition of the Signpost: AffCom, Olympics, ethics & research, and more

2016-09-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-09-06/Blog Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]] co-Editor in Chief, The Signpost enwp.org/WP:POST ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey

2016-09-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:19 AM, James Forrester wrote: > All, > > *TL;DR*: Communities using Flow are invited to fill out a survey about what > they want to see from Flow, From this web page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow#Development_status "Starting in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF C level hiring and retention

2016-08-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, maybe so, but if that's what you're going for, your best move might be to privately urge the people who have talked to you to come forward publicly -- rather than you sharing their words without attribution or context. The information that came through from your message is, "Pine asserts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An example where search could be improved

2016-07-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
We recently had a huge amount of discussion about the importance of search, on this list and elsewhere. My strong takeaway from that was, nobody disagrees with the position you're advocating here, Jimmy - that our search is problematic, and is worth investing in. The only directly related ideas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee

2016-07-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Sorry to post twice -- I spoke too soon with "single greatest opportunity." An acknowledgment of community members' positive role in addressing the Superprotect debacle is another important opportunity that should not be missed. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:3

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight

2016-06-30 Thread Pete Forsyth
Excellent example Chris, thanks for taking the time to write that up. I agree it would have had at least as much positive effect, and also substantially less negative effect, than the original post. One person's opinion might be especially worth considering: I wonder whether the person whose name

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India

2016-06-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > In other words, although I am not disclosing all of information I > have, mostly to protect privacy of some people, Yes, this is a difficult line to walk. I have encountered this issue many times in the Wikimedia world.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India

2016-06-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India

2016-06-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > > On the rest: being defensive is not useful; being constructive is. > I don't see anything in this thread that looks defensive; what I see (and thoroughly agree with) is a request to more clearly define the problem. I'd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-06-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
Risker, perhaps you missed this part of Patricio's message; I'm pretty sure this is what Pine was referring to: > In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position. We should have been more clear on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, as one of the admins who has worked to fend off this sustained attack, I can attest it is exactly that. Your point is a valid one, but it does not apply to this situation. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Jun 5, 2016 7:13 AM, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" wrote: > I am

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

2016-05-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful input, feel free to contact me offlist. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain > > communication channels, not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain communication channels, not "our entire movement.") But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a certain trustee should remain in their position. Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
Denny, Like Todd and others, I appreciate your candid exposition of how things went. It's important to have clarity about what happened here, and your contributions are very helpful toward that end. Thank you. However, these words ring hollow: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

2016-05-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
Adam, Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]),

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-04-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
corded WMF Board meetings To: petefors...@gmail.com, nawr...@gmail.com 26.04.2016, 14:32, "Nathan" <nawr...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage < trill

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-04-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage wrote: > > Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, > "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." Wait -- seriously?? I missed this piece until today. But if this is true,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] User interaction on Wikipedia --call for submissions

2016-03-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
But...but...Moushira just acknowledged the point. Gracefully, I think. Can't we simply trust her to incorporate the feedback into future announcements? For anybody who had trouble discerning what the consultation is about, its first question makes it clear: "How can we make Wikipedia more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons

2016-03-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
In case anybody believes Wikimedia Foundation personnel have entirely forgotten this issue, please be assured that is not the case. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119595 Speaking for myself, I'm not convinced that taking action on a two year old RFC at Commons is the most pressing component

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker wrote: > There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include > non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements" and > "how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and > non-disclosure

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
Guys...gals...some perspective? The important thing (as Andreas initially said) is that informal commitments from Trustees, to seek transparency in specific areas, not continue to get lost. The questions about what department it belongs in, the speed at which they get addressed, etc. are all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cross-wiki notifications beta feature now available on all wikis

2016-03-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
I've enjoyed finding some messages I never knew were there, such as a welcome message from two years ago on Basque Wikipedia, and a substantive reply I had missed on Wikinews for 4 months. It's refreshing for a new feature to make me immediately feel more connected to other volunteers. Well done!

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia.org portal page update!

2016-03-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thank you to the Discovery team -- it seems to me that your work has been largely overshadowed by political concerns in recent months (which may have been necessary, but not pleasant). I'm delighted to see working and useful software emerge, in spite of the challenging environment that has

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

2016-03-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
useful overview of how things could or should go in the future. Thank you for that. Specifics about my choice to release the email below: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

2016-03-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
of mine: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] -- Forwarded message -- *From: *Jimmy Wales *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman *Subject: **A conversation?* James, I wonder

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately > reminded why some people call it "drama-l" Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama, there are much more

[Wikimedia-l] Easier browsing of Board minutes, agendas, etc., plus summaries

2016-03-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
As many of you are aware, it's always been difficult to navigate information about the proceedings of the Board of Trustees: minutes, agendas, specific resolutions, notes, and commentary are split across Meta Wiki, WMF Wiki, various mailing lists, etc. So, I spent the last few days building a set

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
+1 Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release the recordings publicly. We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please, start recording the meetings -- if only for the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't seen addressed: Are there notes kept during executive sessions? From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing minutes; but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia candidate for the board

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
Assume Good Faith, we Assess the Conditions Impacting Good Faith. Or at least, we should. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocrist...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-03-03 2:06 GMT+01:00 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>: > > I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia candidate for the board

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
I heartily endorse what Asaf has said here, but I'd add one thing: When someone runs for the board, that introduces a standard that goes beyond Assume Good Faith. Ultimately, if appointed, a Trustee will need to disclose any Conflicts of Interest. But those disclosures, as I understand it, are

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

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
]] On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's > encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this > part: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 P

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

2016-03-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
Dave, you're simply mistaken. The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany wrote: > Dear Coren > > I think you are

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

2016-02-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this part: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-27 Thread Pete Forsyth
; too. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Keegan Peterzell > <kpeterz...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Still, my list is very much influenced by what I > >> ha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Risker wrote: > > Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. Risker, perhaps you missed this in my original message -- I did not express that we need a new board. Item #3 on my list was entirely under the heading: "The Board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
had time to understand the problems. Quite a > > few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours are > > nothing much more than personal wishlists; almost all of them are > proposing > > to solve problems that may or may not even exist. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very aware that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll. Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking with a number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to whatever

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

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
I agree with what Pine said -- it's worthwhile to consider keeping a record of these conversations, at minimum for staff reference, even if making them all public is not desirable. Further to that point, I have found in many instances, involving a skilled professional facilitator or mediator, who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Lawrence Lessig has done wonderful things for the free culture movement (including making that very phrase famous!) I am pretty confident, given his recent interests, that he would not want this position,but he's well worth discussing anyway. Though I don't know Larry Lessig personally, I do know

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
eteforsyth]] On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru> wrote: > On 2016-02-26 21:20, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> All: >> >> Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of >> contention has been resolved. But as

[Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
All: Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of contention has been resolved. But as many have said, the "real work" of getting back on track comes next. I have been thinking about what the next specific steps should be, and I have some suggestions here. I present

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

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Regarding the Wikimedia Foundation paying editors, brokering paid editing to displace the role of PR agencies, etc.: Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and effectively with Wikipedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

2016-02-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > > > > I have to register disagreement with the idea that the WMF board is > > duty-bound to serve the Foundation over the Wikimedia movement. > > > > I still feel this is more a semantic issue than a practical

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
l volunteers (along the lines > of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I > wouldn't bother reading their reports. > > If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start. > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
estones. > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html > > > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','petefors...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > > >> Br

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anthony, two points: 1. Billinghurst is a very long-serving community member, and has always in my experience been happy to talk things through. I'd urge you just to talk with him directly. 2. Tension is high right now. If we're irritating each other more than usual, keep that in mind...it may

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > > > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider > > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Molly White < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that > was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at > last glance) members that their comments and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV wrote: > ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be > helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I > talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service. > > But

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote: > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ... On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris wrote: > Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all > attempts

[Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov, Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/#comment-25092 On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > An unusually immediate comment from Wikimedia leadership following > Andreas' admittedly speculative comments. > > It's not about the relevance to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-20 Thread Pete Forsyth
An unusually immediate comment from Wikimedia leadership following Andreas' admittedly speculative comments. It's not about the relevance to the movement. It's not about the relevance to the organization. It's about an individual's role. This just got fascinating (and a little more depressing).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Candidates - Affiliate Selected members of the WMF Board

2016-02-18 Thread Pete Forsyth
t > kinds of talents and characteristics they'd like to see in candidates. > > Risker/Anne > > > > On 18 February 2016 at 22:18, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Risker, I think Lane understood SJ's question, and stated that it's > outside > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Candidates - Affiliate Selected members of the WMF Board

2016-02-18 Thread Pete Forsyth
Risker, I think Lane understood SJ's question, and stated that it's outside his group's mandate. I sympathize with Lane's position. I agree with SJ's concern about what kind of candidates should be considered, but I do not think it would be appropriate for a group of three to set the tone of what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving transparency and communication

2016-02-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
Lodewijk, Thank you for this suggestion. I drafted a proposal about a month ago for something like this, as a community-initiated project; however, I agree that something with explicit buy-in from the Board would be much better. Still, perhaps this draft will be useful; it is Proposal #1 (of two)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
to be clear what it is we're talking about. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 11:08 AM, "Leinonen Teemu" <teemu.leino...@aalto.fi> wrote: > > On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Apart from brand affiliation, what do y

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-02-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
ch or that the additional effort as > described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit. > Thanks, > GerardM > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lila, > > > > The confusion,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-02-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
Lila, The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
Blake scholar who > > worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open > > access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his > > publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from > > making Open Access, as a long-ter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts and discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which is certainly an important piece. A number of people also felt that, while

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various proprietary sources of information: http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/ On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several

[Wikimedia-l] Siko's message, and the importance of shared values

2016-02-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
All: As a rule, I don't comment on staff arrivals and departures on this list, even though I often (as in this case) greatly regret seeing talented people leave the Wikimedia Foundation. But Siko Bouterse's departure is different. Siko, in her parting message, used words that are unmistakably

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-02-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
Dariusz, Thank you for engaging on this. I believe the important thing now is to understand what happened specifically with the Knowledge Engine grant; but you make a claim about a more general policy that I think should be addressed. (I will address KE issues separately.) On Thu, Feb 11, 2016

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On boards and good governance: The Bottom Line

2016-01-30 Thread Pete Forsyth
+1, good info. Thanks Andy. -Pete [[User: Peteforsyth]] On Jan 29, 2016 9:54 PM, "Anthony Cole" wrote: > That was enlightening. Thank you Andy. > > Anthony Cole > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Andy Mabbett > wrote: > > > Given recent

[Wikimedia-l] Board meeting January 30

2016-01-29 Thread Pete Forsyth
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Board_meetings=15288840=15052206 Agenda: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Board_meetings/2016-01-30 -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

2016-01-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
+1 On Jan 27, 2016 10:18 PM, "Michael Snow" wrote: > On 1/27/2016 1:44 PM, Kat Walsh wrote: > >> Thank you, Patricio. >> >> And thank you, Arnnon. I am sure this must have been difficult for >> you, that you had every intention of bringing your best work to the >> role,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-01-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
MZMcBride, that is an *excellent* find -- I had forgotten that it was articulated as a formal policy. I have now updated my blog post on the topic with a link to that email: http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ Perhaps Lisa can tell us whether that policy was ever rescinded? -Pete

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

2016-01-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Jan 26, 2016 5:24 AM, "Magnus Manske" <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you have even minimum indications of "evil" WMF plans for Wikidata, > please share

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

2016-01-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
t gave me pause. I explained to you that you seemed more interested in setting me up to be a part of your political point, than in actually having a discussion. So I declined to discuss your idea. This message seems to prove that my instincts were correct. Pete > > On 26 January 2016 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

2016-01-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Alice and Arnnon, Thank you for your recent messages and your efforts to grapple with these issues. I have two questions which have been much discussed; perhaps you can provide clarification, so we can better understand the process? On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Alice Wiegand

[Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

2016-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
(Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.) Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally

  1   2   3   >