[Wikimedia-l] Re: Obnoxious fundraisers again: Undismissable notice

We ought to have an RfC proposing to limit the size of such disruptive banners. > On Dec 17, 2022, at 6:16 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > If you aren't logged in and you're on mobile, the fundraising notice > now takes up 1.5 screens, and can't be dismissed - there's only "Maybe > later",

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

Hi, can I help? > On May 3, 2022, at 8:25 AM, Peter Southwood > wrote: > > And who will do all this tedious work? Cheers, Peter >   <> > From: g...@tiscali.it [mailto:g...@tiscali.it > ] > Sent: 01 May 2022 20:01 > To:

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

Also relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success. I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably

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

I've always thought this justification fraught with bias. Vandalism is highly visible: you can point to it and say it's a problem. And it's true! But the *lack* of contributions is of course, by nature, invisible. On Apr 20, 2022, at 2:33 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" wrote: > I don't have a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: (How) can I see the early revision history?

Looks like it's in the WayBack Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20110614170356/http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z But it would still be nice to know

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Code of Conduct

The WMF continues its steady departure from the community. It is quite sad to see. > On Feb 2, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Yair Rand wrote: > > The community has not approved the WMF's UCoC. It is not a Wikimedia policy, > it is not binding, it has no authority. The WMF does not control the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New feature from Community Tech: Watchlist Expiry

Thanks, I've always wanted this. > On Dec 1, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Ilana Fried wrote: > > Hello everyone, > I'm very excited to announce a new feature created by the Community Tech[1] > team: Watchlist Expiry. With this feature, you can optionally select to watch > a page for a temporary

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil a écrit : >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta >> wrote: >> >>> Please, enlighten me. >> >> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you >> see room for improveme

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

Please, enlighten me. On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta > : >> >> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have >> a deeply flawed understanding of civi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

Am I reading this correctly? You were moderated for calling the UCoC flatulence? Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a deeply flawed understanding of civility? On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dan Szymborski wrote: > That's OK. I have much bigger

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

I agree, the lack of transparency is quite concerning, as is the use of AWS. I sure hope we're not going to be producing closed source code! On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Amir Sarabadani wrote: > Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now. > > I think I need to clarify something:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emergency moderation ended

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 00:54 Benjamin Ikuta wrote: > >> >> >> For the sake of transparency, how many messages were blocked? >> >> >> >> On Jun 23, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: >> >>> Dear Wikimedians, >>> >&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emergency moderation ended

For the sake of transparency, how many messages were blocked? On Jun 23, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > Dear Wikimedians, > > We have ended the emergency moderation of the mailing list > > We did our best to process the moderation queue at least several times a > day, but are

[Wikimedia-l] Commons

Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia. Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly? ~Benjamin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

Countless editors, myself included, have complained about this over the years. Regarding the WMF's response, actions speak louder than words. On May 4, 2020, at 7:55 AM, John Erling Blad wrote: > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I > got the usual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Face recognition

Thanks for that. Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not directly state, that AI training is a derivative work; could you clarify that? On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Ryan Merkley wrote: > [My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official

[Wikimedia-l] Donating to Wikipedia

My dad recently said to me: "I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate." Has there been any research into how common it is for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TLS

a.org/sec-warning > Why are you attempting to connect using old versions of TLS? > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 20:30, Benjamin Ikuta > wrote: > >> >> >> Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something? >> >> I noticed I couldn

[Wikimedia-l] TLS

Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something? I noticed I couldn't connect the other day, but now it seems I can again. For what it's worth, I strongly oppose any measure that makes Wikimedia projects less accessible. ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Community Wishlist Survey: Submit Your Proposals

I would also like to see an answer to this. On Oct 23, 2019, at 4:59 AM, AntiCompositeNumber wrote: > Furthermore, requests that "generally target all wikis" are also now > excluded. Does that mean that requests relating to the work of stewards and > global sysops, who do much of the work

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia site and system outages

I am also curious about this. > On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:55 PM, RhinosF1 - wrote: > > Any idea of when an incident report may come out? > > RhinosF1 > Wikimedia User & Incident Reporter > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Heather Walls wrote: > >> Hello again, >> >> As a follow-up to my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Community Tech: New Format for 2020 Wishlist Survey

Thank you for writing this; I completely agree. I've long thought the WMF should put more resources into community wishes, not less. I do hope this will be reconsidered. Perhaps there could be more wishes granted to non-Wikimedia projects, while maintaining the same number of wishes for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Could we have a formal RfC already, please? > On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > > Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be > taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in > this process is a serious problem, and it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward. > On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ wrote: > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

What I have said is that I hope the wider > community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is > working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some > requires more discussion and some adjustments. > > James > > On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way. On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman wrote: > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group > position at this point in time. > > J > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this. See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen wrote: > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On wiki versus off wiki - it may not be that simple

It would do a great deal to clear the air of speculation if they would at least confirm they're not accusing Fram of off wiki harassment. On Jun 30, 2019, at 8:20 AM, Stephen Philbrick wrote: > Please keep in mind the plausible scenario that one or more people > contacted T & S, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

story is lying or a > large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out. > > Occam’s razor. > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."? You really think he's just outright lying? On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Wikimedia Space: A space for movement news and conversations

My two cents: I'd rather have such discussions on wiki. Old browsers are more compatible with the wiki website, and it'd be more convenient and accessible otherwise. On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Fæ wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Maria Cruz wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Thanks for this. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and lack of transparency. On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 wrote: > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead. > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interpretation of CC NC from SUISA

Do you think it might be a common misconception, perhaps? On May 20, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and > Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe > we as a Movement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you and farewell

What did you learn about epistemology? On May 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Sati Houston wrote: > Hi All, > > After almost 5 years at WMF, I’ve decided to move on from the Foundation. > My last day will be June 4th. > > These last few years have been an unexpected journey. When Anasuya Senguta

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

Well, there's always good ol' Jimbo's talk page. On May 15, 2019, at 6:25 AM, Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to > participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have > any channels to listen to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who oversees the AffCom?

I'm not familiar with this specific situation, but I agree that more transparency and accountability would be good. On May 6, 2019, at 12:40 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > Hello, > > A few days ago the Wikimedia affiliate I belong to was officially informed, > by a WMF source, that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

> On Apr 27, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Strainu wrote: > > They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write > articles, it won't make it a successful project. > That certainly wouldn't be the worst use of funds... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

What real life problems would there be? On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga wrote: > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems > than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with > Wikipedia could create real life

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

| > | > | > | | | > > | > > | > | > | | > Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia > > > | > > | > > | > > > > >Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 00:14:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta > ha scr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about Naruto and Pokemon. On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto > and Pokemons,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

I agree, we should not be deleting useful articles. https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism On Mar 11, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wrote: > I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who > published articles on Science and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

Thank you for this. Could you elaborate on the definition of knowledge, please? This is something I've long been interested in. On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:04 AM, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > Hi Amir, > > > *How can the Wikimedia movement be more truly international * > Participants

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

I'd be interested in hearing about perceptions of the movement. On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:35 PM, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > Hello, > > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat, > democratic, and

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

I'll admit I was initially deceived by his initial message. > On Jan 16, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Risker wrote: > > I regret to say that I feel James has abused this forum once again for his > own personal agenda, much of which is unrelated even indirectly to the WMF > or the Wikimedia movement.

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

I also assumed that, and was quite concerned. > On Jan 16, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Kevin Payravi wrote: > > I've heard confusion from a couple folks and want to make sure it's clear > here that this survey is coming from you as an individual, Jim, and has no > origination or coordination with