Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
On 8/2/12 7:51 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: And I would love to see the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and responsibility to non-staff groups. We have no shortage of energy, talent, and experience there in the community. In addition, there's a fairly well-organized set of advocacy groups in related areas (Creative Commons, FSF, EFF), who perhaps some of the work could be delegated to? There would still be a need for a process to decide when Wikimedia should do things such as agreeing to sign on to an EFF amicus brief. But imo it makes sense to leave most of the legwork to advocacy organizations who focus on it. -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
David Gerard wrote: On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel. Um ... that's a bizarre perception. Is it? I read through the page at Meta-Wiki and couldn't help but notice that every involvement required the approval of the General Counsel. I read the linked Board resolution (https://wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affiliations) and looked around wikimediafoundation.org and Meta-Wiki trying to find a resolution or vote that directed the General Counsel to develop this kind of policy, but didn't find anything. Philippe seemed to suggest that there's a distinction between outside groups approaching the Wikimedia Foundation for support and the community making its own requests. The distinction seems incredibly murky and doesn't seem likely to become clearer over time. What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia engineering July 2012 report
Hi, The report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in July 2012 is now available. Wiki version: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/July Blog version: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/08/02/engineering-july-2012-report/ -- Guillaume Paumier Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Washington diary
Hello, Please allow me to send a link to my 'Washington diary' about Wikimania in Washington; it is mostly about the proceedings of the Wikimedia Chapters Association. Kind regards Ziko http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ziko/Washington_diary ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours with the Wikimedia Fellows
Reminder: this office hours begin in 30 minutes. :-) Join #wikimedia-office from your IRC client or Webchat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikimedia-office -- Forwarded message -- From: Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.org Date: Jul 31, 2012 3:36 AM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours with the Wikimedia Fellows To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Hi all, The Wikimedia Fellows program will be holding IRC office hours in #wikimedia-office this Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 21:00 UTC. Fellows Tanvir Rahman, Peter Coombe, Jon Harald Søby, Steven Zhang, Sarah Stierch and Jonathan Morgan will be there to discuss their current fellowship projects (exact topics TBD based on who shows up with questions/comments/feedback), and I'll take any questions on the fellowships program that you may have.[1][2] As always, links to time conversion and other office hour info is on Meta.[3] Hope to see you there! Best wishes, Siko 1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_News/Current, and this should be even more current by Thursday :-) 2. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours -- Siko Bouterse Head of Community Fellowships Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tanvir Rahman Community Fellow Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours with the Wikimedia Fellows
For those who missed our first office hour, logs are now available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-08-02 Hope to see you all next time. Cheerio, Tanvir -- Tanvir Rahman Community Fellow Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel. Um ... that's a bizarre perception. Well, just look at the number of scenarios where the democratically elected board is entirely out of the loop, or at best (possibly) consulted. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote: This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated. Yeah, and I remember how users were directed (by WMF staff, wasn't it?) to stop marking votes by single-purpose accounts and IPs, as is common in every other minor community discussion in the English Wikipedia. SPA and IP votes are routinely discounted in garden-variety AfDs. But they counted in the blackout vote. It's a fact, and quite unprecedented. Why? And the timeline of the Italian blackout in October, the half-a-million-dollar Google donation in November, the first Wikimedia endorsement of the Google position, also in November, and the subsequent SOPA blackout in January, are what they are. Politicians may protest, Oh, my lobbying for Mr Rich had nothing to do with the $500,000 they gave me at about the time I started lobbying for them. But people generally aren't stupid. For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end. And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen to what we have to tell you. A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration in return for what has been given is disgusting. * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494 On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January? You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA? Good question. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l --- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings. The community - who are the ones ultimately making the gift do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration. Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration. The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply * indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free knowledge. There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity. This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying well you gave it to me so why are you upset what I do with my property? It might be legally true, perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not morally true. We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and humanity. Sometimes we say *Look, we care about these things enough that we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the ecosystem within which that effort is placed*. That is completely ethical and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care whether it grows or dies. FT2 On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end. And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen to what we have to tell you. A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration in return for what has been given is disgusting. * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some discussion on his question. This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me. I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog. Birgitte SB On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January? You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA? Good question. ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
On 2 August 2012 21:07, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Brandon Harris wrote: On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January? You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA? Good question. This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated. To be clear, my question isn't about Google or donations or anything like that. My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a community initiative or not? Given that this statement was written as a response to the January 2012 SOPA blackout, it seems like a reasonable question. Philippe and others have indicated that such actions would _not_ fall under this new doctrine. Is this correct? My sense is that the statement is written as a response to the overtures that have been made to the WMF since the January 2012 SOPA blackout. Like many people outside of the WMF umbrella (and quite a few inside it, as well, based on comments we see regularly), it seems that many of these advocacy groups believe that WMF=Wikipedia. Those of us in the know understand that there's an awful lot more that is involved, and that there are widely divergent opinions on many issues between projects and within the broader community. It's easy to forget (in fact, most people have forgotten) that the English Wikipedia community had been discussing some form of action in relation to SOPA for almost two months before the blackout. The Italian Wikipedia blackout in late 2011 demonstrated some significant fault lines if a large project suddenly closes up shop; because of this, I think the WMF justifiably had an interest in ensuring that if the English Wikipedia community followed suit, it was done in a controlled way that would not cause short-term or long-term harm to the actual project. I'm not talking reputational harm, but damage to the hardware, software, and data that are integral to the project. The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me, especially when I consider the Wikimedia Foundation to view the entire Wikimedia editing community as an outside group some days. Ah, interesting point. My read of this was that the guideline would consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to be an outside group, whereas an initiative from one or more WMF communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall under these guidelines. The recent request for comment with respect to the Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would fall within this guideline, I think. I think your questions illustrate the need for improving some of the prose within the guideline so that these issues are clear to future readers, both inside and outside of our broader community. It's quite possible that my own interpretation is off the mark as well. Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me Ah, interesting point. My read of this was that the guideline would consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to be an outside group, whereas an initiative from one or more WMF communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall under these guidelines. The recent request for comment with respect to the Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would fall within this guideline, I think. That is my reading of it as well. Are there guidelines or discussions on it:wp or en:wp about how to handling future community initiatives? SJ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l