Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > > > (It would be interesting to hear some better experiences: ways in which our > AB has been useful over the years.) > + AB members usually submits names for trustee and exec searches, when they are aware of those

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

My personal analysis comes to the conclusion that the voting formula/voting system needs to be redesigned before next election. The current one has serious flaws related to the oppose option. It is both open to "smart" voting (manipulation) and it also gives undue weight to the oppose option.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

Congratulations Maria! On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on > the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that > light. We do have a limited volunteer

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

Hoi Several WIkipedias extended their search with functionality by Magnus that provides them info from Wikidata. It is why you find results from any Wikipedia on the Tamil Wikipedia for one. There is no reason why we cannot do this everywhere. Thanks, GerardM On 30 January 2016 at 00:50,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

Hoi, The purpose of a board is to function and do its job. When basic and specialised skills are of no relevance, the board will become a mouth piece of the organisation and that is worse. So no, you are wrong. Thanks, GerardM On 29 January 2016 at 16:51, Uwe Herzke

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

+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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best option in these circumstances. Simple positive voting, single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze would all do that. I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election committee to consider now

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best > option in these circumstances. > > Simple positive voting, single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze > would all do that. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

"On 30 January 2016 at 14:20, Pierre-Selim wrote: > We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the > result. The denial is hindering improvements. It certainly wasn't my intention to deny that this occurs, nor it's potentially devastating

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto: I think you meant to link this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=revision=686068089=686006551 Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt with it as that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

A similar situation happened to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=685988175=685926527 or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}"

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

Lila Tretikov wrote: >I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much >as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well >as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize >many people a curious about what it actually funds, so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

Felicidades, María!! It's refreshing to see you back as a member of the Board. The movement needs your wisdom, experience, clarity and attitude!! <3 M. El 29/01/2016 a las 05:27 p.m., Patricio Lorente escribió: Dear all, I am happy to announce the Board intends to fill the open community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Hi Tobias, In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high, the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment (~1200). e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Some of the things that users might consider "revenge porn" would include porn that is sent to them via email (either images or text - both of which I've received), or images/comments posted to their userspace or to other places where it was intended to come to their attention (e.g., obviously

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

I think you meant to link this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=revision=686068089=686006551 On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Vituzzu wrote: > A similar situation happened to me: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=685988175=685926527 >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the Board. Does the community voting process want to try to take that on? How would we do such a thing? Risker/Anne I think here we only have two options: 1) To decide that one (or two) of the community-elected seats is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

On 30 January 2016 at 13:14, Tobias wrote: > Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of > revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit > or sexualised photos of without one's consent". > > > Wait, what?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

As an oversighter on Wikimedia Commons, I have witness what has been described by Maggie and Philippe. We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the result. The denial is hindering improvements. Le 30 janv. 2016 3:03 PM, "Maggie Dennis" a écrit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Hi Maggie, On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote: > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community > Advocacy). There have been cases

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Maggie gave the answer: "and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them." It isn't dependent on an actual published photo. You can take any old photo, slap "Philippe beau fete" on it, and run with it. (You CANbut

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Hi, Tobias. In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Hi, Tobias. The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Thank you Patrick. The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment respondents cite. User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of respondents in our community* apparently were

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie! Tobias ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious. Todd On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias wrote: > Right.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Hi Tobias, Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed revenge porn being reported by this many people. But it is not surprising that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in order to link it here):

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

Well, the easiest way to determine a "next best" option is to build it into the bylaws. It's clear what would happen if, before an appointment, a "selected" candidate was found to be problematic - it goes to the 4th place candidate - but the bylaws don't go into what happens post appointment.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" : > The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic > pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is > not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems > to be to humiliate and hurt