Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martijn > > I'm under no such obligation, Indeed, none of us is under any such obligation, which is why it is somewhat pointless for one list member to issue orders to another, such as "Don't do that." > I do want to call out when something so egregiously > off base is put forward as the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martin > No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that > citing itself is disallowed. > Perhaps, then, rather than telling us what it is that you don't agree with, you would like to propound your own position, and in your own words. Do you believe that Wikipedia is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

es policy of > wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as > evidence of failure is ridiculous. > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Martin, Dennis > > > > The tenor of you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you > seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off list, > or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think > are reasonable in the first place. > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

B articles > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"? > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Vito > > > > This rather tends to support my point. One (and no

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Leila Since I raised this particular issue,, I'll take the liberty of giving an answer to this question, even though you addressed it to Benjamin. The failure that I was pointing to was not the failure to identify copyright violations, but the failure to address the huge backlog of probable

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

l.com> ha scritto: > > > I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible > source > > is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > thrapostibong...@gmail.co

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Dear all, The discussion triggered by recent WMF T actions has tended to focus on the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk and those who talk don't know). So I though it might be helpful to

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

Paulo I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives > were that stuff is said to be happening, > Unfortunately one of those dumping grounds now appears to be the official Twitter account of Wiki Women in Red, a recognised Wikipedia Project, where a member chose to

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

All, A suggestion that I think might help to focus the discussion. I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss what Fram might or might not have done, and whether or not some acts that Frame might or might not have done, or failed to do, merits the punishment that has been meted out should

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

Fæ [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia community processes are not "perfectly

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

PR in their own individual contributons, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights These are the facts, -- do you wish to dispute them? Thrapostibongles > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Mis

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

> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in > this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned. > > Cheers, > > Peter Southwood > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun

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

Todd They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular > participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial > back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in > the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to

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

as its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned. > Cheers, > Peter Southwood > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List

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

Yaroslav, I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for the volunteer workers. For example, they have consistently

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

ber of assertions about the community, > individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities > that aren't warranted. > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Frankly,

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

Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this particular case

[Wikimedia-l] Form 990

I don't think it was announced on this list, so let me point out that the Founation recently published its IRS Form 990 for 2017/18: see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_related_information/2017_Wikimedia_Foundation_Form_990_Frequently_Asked_Questions for the FAQ and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

James It already is Plan-S compliant :-) Unfortunately Plan-S requires rather more than a conformant licence. It also imposes strict conditions on business models and editorial practices, not all of which have yet been completely finalised: see

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Thomas Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant? Thrapostibongles On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee wrote: > Hello Wikipedians, > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group > has been building >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil

Joseph Perhaps we could assume that your colleagues on the Affiliations Committee are well aware of the past history and have taken it into consideration privately, which is exactly how such issues sould be considered, rather than on a public mailing list. Unless you have evidence to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback requested for draft code of conduct for user group

Thomas An excellent idea, no doubt, but is multiplying codes of conduct really the best way forward? Would it not be better if the Foundation were to promulgate a single code of conduct covering all its projects and spaces, and then supplement that with individual guidelines in specific cases?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback requested for draft code of conduct for user group

Paulo > > I'm curious if non discriminating anyone politically could imply a group or > community being forced to accept people from the extreme right or the likes > of it, with public (but not onwiki) views against migration, promoting > racial discrimination, and revisionism, for instance? >

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

or the Wikimedia > > projects, as IMO it really hinders our mission of a free and open > project. > > > > Paulo > > > > Yury Bulka escreveu no dia segunda, > > 20/05/2019 à(s) 07:28: > > > >>> From: Mister Thrapostibongles > >>>

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

James > Per "the Foundation has decided", it is not the foundation but our movement > that has decided that we will mostly only allow licenses that allow > commercial reuse. > That doesn't seem quite right. The Foundation Board adopted a resolution on 23 March 2007, which is published at

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

Yury I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit commercial reuse. And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights

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

James This seems inside-out. Rather than WMF staff trying to guess which of the tens of thousands of existing discussions might be of relevance, why not simply tell the community the locations of the pages or other channels which you propose to use to engage them. Thrapostibongles On Wed, May

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

Asaf, Perhaps there is a mismatch of expectations here. The trustees and the senior staff of the WMF are the leaders of the movement and we may presume that they know how to do their job. It is for them to decide on the way they wish to engage with the community they lead, and they have many

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

le environment for uploaders, but on > the > > > > other > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating > > > files a > > > > > day: > > > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:

[Wikimedia-l] Structured data ethical implications

Dear all, There have been announcements about the Structured data project on Commons, that is intended to make it easier to view, search, edit, organize and re-use the metadata on media. This is clearly of great value to researchers and developers in image recognition, who will have a large

[Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hello all, There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter