Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
2012/7/18 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: I know that the feature may be perceived as invasive so I would like that as many people as possible share their opinion on this and I hope that we can anyway start a discussion that will lead to an improved geolocalization system, whichever we found appropriate. I am sorry to insist on this issue but having received almost no answers in the past week I fear that I was not clear in my request. But I indeed have some questions, so I restate them here: * Using browser localization capabilities may be perceived as invasive. Would you like to use browser localization tool in Wikipedia? (yes/no, why?) * Do you think the trade-off between bothering user asking to send position information and potential benefits (more accurately localized messages) is worth? * Are you happy with the current system ? * Do you think a deeper study of the issue (i.e. a new survey, conducted on a broader sample and in a more scientifically precise way) would be useful or would help you make a more informed decision? * Have you any further proposal for the use of the system? Thank you, please also use the discussion page of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Geonotice#Open_questions_.28feedback_welcome.29 for comments. Thank you, Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/18 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: I know that the feature may be perceived as invasive so I would like that as many people as possible share their opinion on this and I hope that we can anyway start a discussion that will lead to an improved geolocalization system, whichever we found appropriate. I am sorry to insist on this issue but having received almost no answers in the past week I fear that I was not clear in my request. But I indeed have some questions, so I restate them here: * Using browser localization capabilities may be perceived as invasive. Would you like to use browser localization tool in Wikipedia? (yes/no, why?) Yes, I think it's invasive and Wikipedians can be quite sensitive about privacy. (even if it's all in the browser, with JavaScript, etc.) It may not be the case everywhere, but the IP based geolocation is good enough for purposes of geonotices. Right now, we pretty much opt everyone into the geonotices, though each can be dismissed or people can turn them off with css / js. I think people would freak out about the more precise geolocation and more would opt out. (e.g. whatever happened with Twitter's geolocation? as far as I see, people don't use it much) * Do you think the trade-off between bothering user asking to send position information and potential benefits (more accurately localized messages) is worth? Not worth it. Not enough benefit over the current approach. * Are you happy with the current system ? Yes. Obviously the UI for the geonotice tool can use improvement, and would be nice to see more geolocation functionality in CentralNotice. * Do you think a deeper study of the issue (i.e. a new survey, conducted on a broader sample and in a more scientifically precise way) would be useful or would help you make a more informed decision? No. Cheers, Katie * Have you any further proposal for the use of the system? Thank you, please also use the discussion page of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Geonotice#Open_questions_.28feedback_welcome.29 for comments. Thank you, Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Board member, Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org @wikimediadc / @wikimania2012 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28: I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation system? As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably other places. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
On Jul 23, 2012 2:59 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 23, 2012 11:48 AM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/18 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: I know that the feature may be perceived as invasive so I would like that as many people as possible share their opinion on this and I hope that we can anyway start a discussion that will lead to an improved geolocalization system, whichever we found appropriate. I am sorry to insist on this issue but having received almost no answers in the past week I fear that I was not clear in my request. But I indeed have some questions, so I restate them here: * Using browser localization capabilities may be perceived as invasive. Would you like to use browser localization tool in Wikipedia? (yes/no, why?) Yes, I think it's invasive and Wikipedians can be quite sensitive about privacy. (even if it's all in the browser, with JavaScript, etc.) It may not be the case everywhere, but the IP based geolocation is good enough for purposes of geonotices. Doesn't work well enough in the UK for our purposes - there are threads and threads of debate on wikimediauk-l if you want to delve into that. The US is the exception, not the rule, in that lat-lon geolocation actually works to a useful accuracy. Deryck Right now, we pretty much opt everyone into the geonotices, though each can be dismissed or people can turn them off with css / js. I think people would freak out about the more precise geolocation and more would opt out. (e.g. whatever happened with Twitter's geolocation? as far as I see, people don't use it much) * Do you think the trade-off between bothering user asking to send position information and potential benefits (more accurately localized messages) is worth? Not worth it. Not enough benefit over the current approach. * Are you happy with the current system ? Yes. Obviously the UI for the geonotice tool can use improvement, and would be nice to see more geolocation functionality in CentralNotice. * Do you think a deeper study of the issue (i.e. a new survey, conducted on a broader sample and in a more scientifically precise way) would be useful or would help you make a more informed decision? No. Cheers, Katie * Have you any further proposal for the use of the system? Thank you, please also use the discussion page of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Geonotice#Open_questions_.28feedback_welcome.29 for comments. Thank you, Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Board member, Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org @wikimediadc / @wikimania2012 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Geolocalization improvement proposal
Somehow this only replied to Nemo Begin forwarded message: From: birgitte...@yahoo.com Date: July 23, 2012 12:27:56 PM CDT To: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28: I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation system? As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably other places. I think it would be useful to have a wider study of the accuracy of the current system. Privacy issues are always a concern. I am not certain I could support gathering more exact information on users who are well-served by the current system. It would be more supportable, I think, if there were a way to turn on the browser-based system only for those who are in areas that are known to be poorly served by the current system. Or if you were to ask those who geolocate to known ambiguous areas to opt-in to browser-based geolocation. There is obviously a benefit for some people, but a cost to everyone if we were to switch wholesale. Further study to determine exactly how widespread and how significant the benefit would be is something that I think might be useful. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 19:27: On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28: I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation system? As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably other places. I think it would be useful to have a wider study of the accuracy of the current system. Privacy issues are always a concern. I am not certain I could support gathering more exact information on users who are well-served by the current system. It would be more supportable, I think, if there were a way to turn on the browser-based system only for those who are in areas that are known to be poorly served by the current system. Or if you were to ask those who geolocate to known ambiguous areas to opt-in to browser-based geolocation. There is obviously a benefit for some people, but a cost to everyone if we were to switch wholesale. Further study to determine exactly how widespread and how significant the benefit would be is something that I think might be useful. What if the new system happened e.g. to be needed for geonotices (to distinguish regions within a country) but not fundraising (which so far cares only about country, for currency/language/payment/legal purposes)? Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
A location gadget would be a way to start. With a gadget, it is opt-in. On Jul 23, 2012 7:43 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28: I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation system? As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably other places. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Grant Advisory Committee Expanded
Hello, everyone. I'm pleased to announce that we have significantly expanded the Grant Advisory Committee (GAC)[1] as of today, and it now numbers 30 volunteers, following an open process and public calls for volunteers. The updated list of members is here[2]. With this expansion, we hope to achieve a higher degree of community participation in the Foundation's evaluation of grant proposals for its Wikimedia Grants program[3], as well as more diverse feedback and advice for grant applicants on how to refine their proposals for best impact. The GAC was set up almost exactly one year ago, and has been quietly doing what is frankly a thankless job. I applaud and thank the volunteers who have done this work so far, and look forward to easing their load a little now that the GAC is larger, considering an expected rise in the number of grant proposals they would be called upon to review. Welcome to the new volunteers, and may we all have much success in fostering innovation and impactful mission-aligned activities through the grants program. Asaf [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee#Membership [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Grant Advisory Committee Expanded
Welcome! Looking forward to working with the new members. SincerelyAbbas. From: abar...@wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:20:20 -0700 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Grant Advisory Committee Expanded Hello, everyone. I'm pleased to announce that we have significantly expanded the Grant Advisory Committee (GAC)[1] as of today, and it now numbers 30 volunteers, following an open process and public calls for volunteers. The updated list of members is here[2]. With this expansion, we hope to achieve a higher degree of community participation in the Foundation's evaluation of grant proposals for its Wikimedia Grants program[3], as well as more diverse feedback and advice for grant applicants on how to refine their proposals for best impact. The GAC was set up almost exactly one year ago, and has been quietly doing what is frankly a thankless job. I applaud and thank the volunteers who have done this work so far, and look forward to easing their load a little now that the GAC is larger, considering an expected rise in the number of grant proposals they would be called upon to review. Welcome to the new volunteers, and may we all have much success in fostering innovation and impactful mission-aligned activities through the grants program. Asaf [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee#Membership [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
