[Wikimedia-l] Rejected email (was Copyright on Xrays)

2012-08-21 Thread J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
The email was rejected because, as indicated in the bounce message, the
email was sent from an address not subscribed to the list. Such emails are
not held pending moderation because of the quantity of spam messages.

Alex



2012/8/21 Matthew Bowker matthewrbowker.w...@me.com

 Hi, all.

 I believe Mike was commenting on the fact that his message was bounced
 back (because of an email funky) and not the topic itself.  In fact, I've
 been caught by that exact same filter myself.

 Sorry if I've read your message wrong.

 Matthew Bowker
 User:Matthewrbowker

 On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:

  On 08/20/12 2:01 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
  OK, so the moderation of this mailing list appears to be broken (surely
 such emails should at least be held for approval by a moderator?). But
 please see my previous email (which I sent after hitting the 'reply'
 button)…
 
  Thanks,
  Mike
 
  It seems like a perfectly valid topic for this list.
 
  Ray
 
  ___
  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 mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour

2012-08-21 Thread Delphine Ménard
Hi, sorry to fish out a very old message, but since the survey is
about to go live, I would like to share some concerns I have about it.
Unfortunately, I was on holidays as this announcement came out, so
couldn't do it earlier.

I find the idea of an editor's survey to be extremely important, since
it is (among other) a good indicator of how the editing community
perceives the atmosphere in the projects, the evolution of the
software and such things. However, I feel this survey is a bit of a
missed opportunity on different aspects.

There is a mix of feedback about the projects and the community and
satisfaction about the WMF, which does not, in my opinion, quite fit
together. I find we should separate those things so as to keep people
free of personal opinions about what the organisation may or may not
do for/with them and let them focus better on their editor's
experience as such. Moreover, this would allow for more questions
about editing, maybe a short presentation of new tools, rating them
etc. which seems to be quite absent from this questionnaire. For
example, I would love to see a question in the technology part about
whether people want/edit from their mobile device, or if they are
familiar with the mobile apps and use them, that kind of stuff.
(rationale given for taking these questions out was length of the
survey, but I think these things are much more relevant to the
well-editing of the contributors than how well they rate the WMF
work). Not to mention that trying to get some feedback from sister
projects would be good also (Commons is already a good first step).

If, however, we're going to mix editor's experience and satisfaction
about Wikimedia, I am cruelly missing any kind of feedback question
about the work of the chapters and/or other organisations or groups in
the Wikimedia Universe that would give people the right scope about
what is happening in a more offline kind of way. Of course, we could
do a separate survey for chapters, but if we're truly an international
movement, then all Wikimedia entities that support/interact with the
community probably would benefit from being put in the same bag in
order to fine tune their support and help for the Wikimedia
communities.

Sue in Washington at Wikimania pulled out the results of one question
that was asked in the editor's survey about whether people were
satisfied about the work of the Foundation and the work of the
chapters. She underlined herself that the results to this question
were probably difficult to interpret out of the box since at no point
in the survey was there a question about whether people were aware
that there was a chapter in their country, which would have qulified
the results a bit. This was already quite criticized last time, yet
the question is still there, unchanged, and without more context than
it had last time. (under FINAL THOUGHTS). In short people are asked to
rate the Foundation about everything it does, while the chapters are
never mentionned, and then people are asked to rate the work of both.
Interesting way to look at it.

We're doing much better, but there is still some English Wikipedia
centrism in Question F2 for example. ;-)
: How well do you believe the Foundation supports:
English Wikipedia?
Wikipedia sites in other languages?


Finally, what I regret most, is that so little time was allocated to
reviewing this survey collaboratively. There was about 20 days to
review, comment, give feedback, translate etc. and this in the mist of
the summer holiday for a big part of our community. When I see such
processes as the ToS revision [1] conducted successfully allowing for
120 days of discussion, and such surveys rushed through the summer,
when their data will probably be used to decide much of the strategic
orientation of the next year, I'm thinking we're missing out on trying
to collect data that is truly relevant to the work we do and that
helps us to review our orientations and adjust how well we support our
editing community.

Best,

Delphine



[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Christine Moellenberndt
christine...@gmail.com wrote:
 *Hi everyone,

 It's been a bit since I last emailed this list (or any list, for that
 matter!)... you may remember me, I worked at the Foundation last year in the
 Community Department, working with Philippe on any number of issues, as well
 as with the OTRS team.  I've come back to work on a short term project with
 the Foundation, and I have to say it's great to be back! (and a great break
 from my Master's thesis!)

 We're getting ready to run the next version of the Editor Survey, for August
 2012. This will be the third incarnation we've run since 2011.  As with the
 prior incarnations of the survey, we'll be looking at a variety of topics,
 this time with the goal of not only understanding your needs and pressing
 issues while interacting with fellow editors, but also focusing on editors'
 satisfaction with the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour

2012-08-21 Thread Delphine Ménard
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 I'm not sure she actually said that. In any case, it is wrong -
 question D6 in the last survey asked if there was a Wikimedia chapter
 in the country where the respondent lived
 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:December_2011_Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_topline.pdfpage=5
 ).

My bad, glad it was there. And yes she did. Maybe not in those exact
words, but she did put the results into context.

 This was already quite criticized last time, yet
 the question is still there, unchanged, and without more context than
 it had last time. (under FINAL THOUGHTS).
 We tried to avoid modifying questions in order to preserve consistence
 and be able  to do some longitudinal analysis (as it was already begun
 for that question in http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=14296 ).

So if a question is poorly phrased, we'll continue having it till the
end of time to preserve consistency? Mind you, I do want that question
in, I just want it within the same context frame that is given to the
same question about the Foundation. And I'm also missing a question
about other entities that might actually help Wikimedians that we're
or we're not aware of.


 Still, I was aware that there had been some objections to that
 question by chapter representatives (which I don't assume have to do
 with the fact that respondents rated chapters' performance lower than
 that of other entities in the two previous surveys), and looked into
 these concerns while the present questionnaire was prepared; I also
 reached out to one of the critics in person at Wikimania. But I still
 haven't seen a compelling argument why the way the question is asked
 should be biased against chapters. The argument that the opinion of
 Wikimedians who live in countries without chapter should not count
 seems weak to me, e.g. because the projects that the work of chapters
 aims to support are international, and because the question asked
 about chapters in general, not one particular chapter.

That is not the argument I was trying to make (ie. voices of
Wikimedians in a country without chapter don't count). Rather, there
is a long list of things the Foundation does, where people are asked
whether they knew about it, or not. And after that, right when people
have been made aware of everything the Foundation does, they are asked
to rate the work of the Foundation. The same question about the
chapters comes after absolutely nothing has been said about chapter
work, which, I believe, does introduce a bias. In short, people are
being asked to rate something they *at this point in the survey* have
an idea about (for the WMF) although they might have had no idea about
it before starting the survey.
All I'm asking is that we review the context in which this question is
being asked so results make more sense.


 In any case, in parallel to preparing the upcoming survey, we have
 recently been compiling the public dataset with the anonymized
 responses from the last survey, which was uploaded yesterday here:
 http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/editorsurveynov-dec2011/
 Using this, anyone can do the analysis you suggest and check if
 ratings differed significantly in chapter/non-chapter countries.

That's great. Thanks. For the record, I'm not expecting the results to
be so extremely different, but I think the fact that they might be or
might not be is extremely important to know.



 Finally, what I regret most, is that o little time was allocated to
 reviewing this survey collaboratively. There was about 20 days to
 review, comment, give feedback, translate etc. and this in the mist of
 the summer holiday for a big part of our community. When I see such
 processes as the ToS revision [1] conducted successfully allowing for
 120 days of discussion, and such surveys rushed through the summer,
 when their data will probably be used to decide much of the strategic
 orientation of the next year, I'm thinking we're missing out on trying
 to collect data that is truly relevant to the work we do and that
 helps us to review our orientations and adjust how well we support our
 editing community.

 Of course there are lots of interesting and important questions that
 had to be left out of this survey. As said earlier, the idea is to run
 the editor survey more frequently from now on, probably quarterly and
 in a more lightweight version, with a different focus in each.


That's good news and I hope the collaborative process can be
reinforced and more time is allowed for comments, reviews, changes and
finetuning.

Best,

Delphine

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-21 Thread geni
On 21 August 2012 19:44,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable


Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l