[Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains 1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of species to be found from reliable databases) The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with the right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active also on ltwp[2]. For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical of botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources. Creative people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old paperbased encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to the readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities all aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created manually I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive stand re semiautomted articles On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for just a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central initiative) Anders [1] Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis Latest changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis [2] ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Have your say on Wikimedia UK's strategy
Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK's board and staff have been working hard over the last few months on our new Strategic Planhttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_plan_2014-2019, and we have just released the draft for community consultation. We hope that the model we have usedhttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_and_operational_models may be of general interest to the wider wiki community, and we hope that as many Wikimedians as possible will help us in critiquing and building on it. The model starts with our Vision and Valueshttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Vision,_values_and_mission_(proposed), and uses those to inform our Mission. Within the Mission, we have identified five high-level Strategic Goalshttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_Goals that will help us focus our activities. For each goal, we will be measuring our ongoing progress against a series of desired outcomes, using numerical targets where possible and narrative measures where we are unable to track hard numbers. This approach should ensure that our day-to-day activities are closely focused on our Mission, and that our 'distance travelled' charitable impact can be tracked over the entire five year term of the plan. Please do get involved in the discussion following the links above. There is also a page for general feedback and comments herehttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_Plan_2014-2019/General_feedback_page. The consultation period closes on 28 February 2014 with a view to the board approving the documents at their meeting in March. You may also be interested in a related blog post by Simon Knighthttp://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2014/02/wikimedia-uk-strategy-consultation/, one of the WMUK trustees who has been closely involved in this work. Thanks in advance for your help, Stevie -- Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
Bot generated articles have been important throughout the history of the wiki Projects. They are essential to our future. They have also always been controversial with some editors. Agreed that not showing them or remaining skeptical rather than learning to use them better will be a proviso and may lead to forks. I am sad when I see veryactive bot and script users blocked on larger wikis (Rich Farmborough comes to mind from enwp) and perhaps we can find ways to recognize the best bots just as we do articles. On Feb 4, 2014 3:31 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains 1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of species to be found from reliable databases) The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with the right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active also on ltwp[2]. For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical of botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources. Creative people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old paperbased encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to the readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities all aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created manually I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive stand re semiautomted articles On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for just a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central initiative) Anders [1] Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis Latest changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/ Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis [2] ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to express your displeasure about a specific individual's block on a particular project, without ensuring that you had your facts straight. It is unfair not only to the project involved, but to the person who is blocked: nobody needs to have a board trustee shining a bright light on their removal from the project. In fact, your using a specific editor as your poster boy for bot editing without knowing why his restrictions are in place is rather inconsiderate to the editor, the project, and the other people who think you're giving wise counsel. Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from the project. Risker On 4 February 2014 07:05, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Bot generated articles have been important throughout the history of the wiki Projects. They are essential to our future. They have also always been controversial with some editors. Agreed that not showing them or remaining skeptical rather than learning to use them better will be a proviso and may lead to forks. I am sad when I see veryactive bot and script users blocked on larger wikis (Rich Farmborough comes to mind from enwp) and perhaps we can find ways to recognize the best bots just as we do articles. On Feb 4, 2014 3:31 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains 1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of species to be found from reliable databases) The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with the right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active also on ltwp[2]. For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical of botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources. Creative people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old paperbased encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to the readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities all aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created manually I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive stand re semiautomted articles On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for just a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central initiative) Anders [1] Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis Latest changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/ Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis [2] ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 12:40, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from the project. Because hitting Control-V was deemed to constitute automation, wasn't it? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 08:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40: Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...] You're putting words in his mouth. Saying, for instance, how sad it is that about 1 % of the USA population is in jail doesn't equal saying that all people in jail should be immediately liberated; similarly, I'm always sad when I block a user, because it's a failure, but that doesn't mean I won't do what's needed. Nemo, he named a specific user. I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily working away on English Wikipedia. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40: Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...] You're putting words in his mouth. Saying, for instance, how sad it is that about 1 % of the USA population is in jail doesn't equal saying that all people in jail should be immediately liberated; similarly, I'm always sad when I block a user, because it's a failure, but that doesn't mean I won't do what's needed. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Have your say on Wikimedia UK's strategy
On 4 February 2014 11:32, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ... You may also be interested in a related blog post by Simon Knighthttp://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2014/02/wikimedia-uk-strategy-consultation/, one of the WMUK trustees who has been closely involved in this work. Out of interest, why is Simon's post about WMUK's strategy on his professional blog, rather than hosting it directly on WMUK's own blog rather than just a redirecting blog post https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/02/have-your-say-on-wikimedia-uks-strategy/? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: .. The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily working away on English Wikipedia. As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images there, I would love to do similar work to benefit the English Wikipedia. I do not feel in the least bit encouraged to even try to set up a content creation or even an uncontroversial en.wp house-keeping project in 2014 considering how much of my volunteer time would be lost it debate any proposal there is likely to create, compared to the simplicity of other Wikimedia projects. Knowing what happens to anyone who becomes of interest and has a large number of edits, along with the associated endless repeated attempts to find any single problematic edit out of hundreds of thousands of perfectly good content creation, I find the word merrily a poor choice. The extraordinary case that Sam mentioned has been a widely discussed lesson to all bot-writers, many of us carefully do our work in a way that avoids ever attempting to put our heads above the parapet and risk becoming targets of depressing damaging witch-hunts, reputation ruining bad faith allegations and extreme effectively *years*-long sanctions from those with big hammers. So rather than merrily one might better chose from cautiously, covertly or even fearfully and not. Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a danger to Wikimedia? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 10:30, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: .. The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily working away on English Wikipedia. As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images there, I would love to do similar work to benefit the English Wikipedia. I do not feel in the least bit encouraged to even try to set up a content creation or even an uncontroversial en.wp house-keeping project in 2014 considering how much of my volunteer time would be lost it debate any proposal there is likely to create, compared to the simplicity of other Wikimedia projects. Knowing what happens to anyone who becomes of interest and has a large number of edits, along with the associated endless repeated attempts to find any single problematic edit out of hundreds of thousands of perfectly good content creation, I find the word merrily a poor choice. The extraordinary case that Sam mentioned has been a widely discussed lesson to all bot-writers, many of us carefully do our work in a way that avoids ever attempting to put our heads above the parapet and risk becoming targets of depressing damaging witch-hunts, reputation ruining bad faith allegations and extreme effectively *years*-long sanctions from those with big hammers. So rather than merrily one might better chose from cautiously, covertly or even fearfully and not. Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a danger to Wikimedia? I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae. Bots have done (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional, by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues), and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not cleaning up those sorts of problems. This has resulted in the bar being raised for everyone. The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of very poor quality. On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes. And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English Wikipedia through bot article creation. Some of those articles have barely been touched since - except by other bots. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a danger to Wikimedia? I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae. Bots have done (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional, by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues), and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not cleaning up those sorts of problems. This has resulted in the bar being raised for everyone. The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of very poor quality. On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes. And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English Wikipedia through bot article creation. Some of those articles have barely been touched since - except by other bots. Risker I take that as a no. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 11:21, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a danger to Wikimedia? I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae. Bots have done (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional, by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues), and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not cleaning up those sorts of problems. This has resulted in the bar being raised for everyone. The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of very poor quality. On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes. And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English Wikipedia through bot article creation. Some of those articles have barely been touched since - except by other bots. Risker I take that as a no. That's unfortunate, Fae. It's meant to say I don't have the knowledge to analyse whether or not your bot works, so I would defer to those who do. I don't think I'm qualified to figure out whether or not your bots, or anyone else's bots, should be operating on Wikipedia. I'd have the same answer to a developer who wanted me to review code, or an engineer who wanted me to look at his designs for an internal combustion engine. It's just knowledge outside of my scope. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator. -- *Harold A. Hidalgo* Editorial Hidalgo Ediciones. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator. Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved commentator. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 11:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator. Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved commentator. I'm not defending the treatment of any individual editor, David. I'm saying that it is wrong, just plain wrong, to try to leverage a situation involving any individual editor by name when making what is an otherwise valid point, particularly when unfamiliar with the entire background. Rich doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list, when there's not a darn thing that's going to change as a result of it. He is a decent person and a dedicated Wikimedian, and people shouldn't be using his name to make political points. I do try to stand up to that principle; there've been numerous opportunities for me over the years to point to the behaviour of specific individuals and try to make hay out of them. I may not always succeed, but I really do try, especially on this global mailing list. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Have your say on Wikimedia UK's strategy
Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK's board and staff have been working hard over the last few months on our new Strategic Planhttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_plan_2014-2019, and we have just released the draft for community consultation. We hope that the model we have usedhttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_and_operational_models may be of general interest to the wider wiki community, and we hope that as many Wikimedians and other interested parties as possible will help us in critiquing and building on it. The model starts with our Vision and Valueshttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Vision,_values_and_mission_(proposed), and uses those to inform our Mission. Within the Mission, we have identified five high-level Strategic Goalshttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_Goals that will help us focus our activities. For each goal, we will be measuring our ongoing progress against a series of desired outcomes, using numerical targets where possible and narrative measures where we are unable to track hard numbers. This approach should ensure that our day-to-day activities are closely focused on our Mission, and that our 'distance travelled' charitable impact can be tracked over the entire five year term of the plan. Please do get involved in the discussion following the links above. There is also a page for general feedback and comments herehttps://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Strategic_Plan_2014-2019/General_feedback_page. The consultation period closes on 28 February 2014 with a view to the board approving the documents at their meeting in March. You may also be interested in a related blog post by Simon Knighthttp://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2014/02/wikimedia-uk-strategy-consultation/, one of the WMUK trustees who has been closely involved in this work. Thanks in advance for your help, Stevie -- Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59: doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention, making this (otherwise quiet) thread into a television legal drama with the continuous scenes of objection! and the judge telling the court to ignore the rampant attorney's harangue. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 16:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the ... case by putting him against a slow death that would ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator. Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not defending the treatment of ... as any sort of uninvolved commentator. Equally odd is deciding spontaneously to opine on the topic of using bots, with a track record of being a Wikimedia expert and authority in the case mentioned, while also being someone who would rather defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group when asked directly for opinions on whether myself as a highly active and successful Commons bot writer is a menace to Wikimedia - but as someone who also been subject to years of depressing ridicule, after being subject to the devastating effect of Risker's personal intervention. It would be great if the English Wikipedia were becoming a more open and welcoming environment, including positive encouragement for bot writers. I just don't see it being led in that direction, instead over the last few years I see it being looked at by other Wikimedia projects as a lesson in how to avoid pointless bureaucracy and hostility to new users or those with minority viewpoints. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59: doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention, making this (otherwise quiet) thread into a television legal drama with the continuous scenes of objection! and the judge telling the court to ignore the rampant attorney's harangue. I'm not sure I entirely understand your point here, Nemo, but nonetheless since it seems to be the opinion of several people in this thread that I was personally responsible for this whole mess, I'll simplly suggest that people read the actual case[1] where the Arbitration Committee upheld not one but two *community* restrictions on the user in question, and took steps to ensure that the community's decision was enforced. Of course, if the Arbitration Committee had overturned the community restrictions, then it would be pilloried for blatantly ignoring a decision that the community had every right to make without Arbcom's involvement. So meanwhile, I look at my watchlist and note that about 15% of the edits on it were made by bots - and as far as I can see, none of them are problematic. Some of the bots on English Wikipedia have been editing longer than I have, and more are created all the time. There are a lot of really excellent bots around, and a lot of bots that might cause problems are weeded out or improved when they get to the Bot Approvals Group. Bots aren't the problem. Risker [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Final_decision ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59: doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list Risker, here's a great tip: If you *really* do not want the case reheard, then why not just stop emailing and publicising the case, repeating the name of the accused and providing links in an attempt to prove some point or other. Try spending your volunteer time welcoming a few new Wikipedia editors instead of banning contributors and making life ghastly for those who are under your hammer. I welcomed and helped many thousands of newer en.wp contributors during the time I was an admin. Even after the machinations of a few individuals shot my reputation to hell and got me banned from what was my home project for many years, I still helped Wikipedians with tricky problems behind the scenes; in fact my highly publicised case made me someone that those upset and having difficulties with our arcane processes could turn to in confidence, in a way that most trusted users do not have the real life experience and grey hairs to offer. Having authority is not all about dishing it out, or even having the badges to prove you must be respected. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] WMF Board approval of new Trademark policy and recommendation on the Community logo registration
Hi all, We are happy to announce that the Board of Trustees approved the new Trademark Policy this Saturday.[1] The policy is based on a seven-month consultation with the community to replace our 2009 policy. The new policy is unconventional in how it provides expansive use of the Wikimedia marks. Thanks to the community's collaboration, the policy is more readable, thorough, and consistent with our values. The Board also approved our recommendation to withdraw trademark registration and protection for the Community logo.[2] We will now initiate withdrawal of US and worldwide registrations. Many thanks to everyone who participated in these two consultations! Thanks, Yana and Geoff [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation -- Yana Welinder Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal attack on Risker or anybody else. Thank you. Thyge/Sir48 2014-02-04 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59: doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list Risker, here's a great tip: If you *really* do not want the case reheard, then why not just stop emailing and publicising the case, repeating the name of the accused and providing links in an attempt to prove some point or other. Try spending your volunteer time welcoming a few new Wikipedia editors instead of banning contributors and making life ghastly for those who are under your hammer. I welcomed and helped many thousands of newer en.wp contributors during the time I was an admin. Even after the machinations of a few individuals shot my reputation to hell and got me banned from what was my home project for many years, I still helped Wikipedians with tricky problems behind the scenes; in fact my highly publicised case made me someone that those upset and having difficulties with our arcane processes could turn to in confidence, in a way that most trusted users do not have the real life experience and grey hairs to offer. Having authority is not all about dishing it out, or even having the badges to prove you must be respected. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?
On 4 February 2014 20:03, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote: A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal attack on Risker or anybody else. Thank you. Thyge/Sir48 Er, that was the point of my tip to Risker. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] WMF Board approval of new Trademark policy and recommendation on the Community logo registration
And a big thank you to legal and the LCA team for their skilled handling of these issues, including extensive consultations and developing a community-centric policy. I am proud that we now have such a thoughtful, open-focused, and yes, unconventional trademark policy for our projects. best, Phoebe On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hi all, We are happy to announce that the Board of Trustees approved the new Trademark Policy this Saturday.[1] The policy is based on a seven-month consultation with the community to replace our 2009 policy. The new policy is unconventional in how it provides expansive use of the Wikimedia marks. Thanks to the community's collaboration, the policy is more readable, thorough, and consistent with our values. The Board also approved our recommendation to withdraw trademark registration and protection for the Community logo.[2] We will now initiate withdrawal of US and worldwide registrations. Many thanks to everyone who participated in these two consultations! Thanks, Yana and Geoff [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation -- Yana Welinder Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
