Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Italia has a new board
Hi Congratulations and thank you to all those involved for volunteering their time! Jan-Bart On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:25, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, yesterday April 6th, 2014, in Florence at The Impact Hub Wikimedia Italia held his general assembly which comprised the vote on the final budget for 2013 and the budget for 2014 the election of 3 new board members[*]. The new board is: * Andrea Zanni, President * Simone Cortesi, Vice-president (newly elected) * Luca Martinelli, Secretary (newly elected) * Cristian Consonni, Treasurer * Ginevra Sanvitale, Director of Programmes (newly elected) Please join me in applauding the new members and wishing them good luck :-) We would also like to thank Alessio Guidetti, Lorenzo Losa, Francesco Tarantini and Frieda Brioschi for their service in the board. Cristian Consonni [*] Wikimedia Italia adopted since last year to have two-year long board mandates with staggered deadlines so we will be electing either 2 or 3 board members each year. ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who cares. I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/ Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support just becomes a box to check. Fred This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen PröÃdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who cares. I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/ Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Hello, I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Kind regards Ziko Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder : Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support just becomes a box to check. Fred This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who cares. I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/ Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe -- Dr. Ziko van Dijk Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://wikimedia.nl ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
As one of the organisers of the workshop, I feel I ought to chime in here. If I remember correctly, those remarks were made as a passing comment in a very emotional session about the role of movement organisations. I don't believe anyone present took them to heart. Indeed, the vast majority of people at the workshop were Wikimedians who'd recently been elected to Chapter boards, who have strong roots in the community and are starting to get to grips with how to run an organisation! I'd certainly suggest people read Steffen's blog post (even if through google translate) or indeed the minutes of the workshop, for a bit more context; http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Minutes Regards, Chris On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who cares. I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_ Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was- ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/ Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
2014-04-07 11:46 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl: Hello, I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Hear, hear. The senitment would be extremely problematic if widespread, of course. But we don't need a great debate based on one (out-of-context) quote from one anonymous person. //Johan Jönsson -- http://wikipediabloggen.se ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
On 7 April 2014 11:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. That translates to OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway. - 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] Fuck the community, who cares
David Gerard wrote: That translates to OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway. Which of the words from the sentence I wrote require translation for you? The idea that there are divisions between chapters and communities is not a new one; I personally have seen people mention it in various places many, many times. If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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] Fuck the community, who cares
Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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 -- Steffen Prößdorf Treasurer, member of the board Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge http://wikimedia.de Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Hoi, What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
I don't believe Tomasz said anything about hanging them and hanging them high. But if there are movementarians who hold this point of view, they should be able to speak up publicly and present that point of view. I, for one, don't disagree with paid editing, so long as it is inline with expected community standards. Having such a person within the chapters who does hold such views is a great thing (perhaps not the fuck the community part though), and they should be encouraged to come forward and make their views known. Whether they are prepared for the tarring and feathering they will receive at the hands of dedicated movementarians is another matter entirely. Obviously it is an issue for some, otherwise Steffen wouldn't have blabbed about it to The Signpost. But no-one wants a repeat of the disgraceful public hanging that Fae suffered at their hands. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de wrote: Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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] Fuck the community, who cares
I agree with Ziko's point entirely here. The two people who have taken part in this discussion so far who were present at the time have not given anything to indicate it was more than a flippant remark made in a stressful situation. Not that I agree with the sentiment of course, but I'm glad that at this meeting a wide variety of views were obviously put forward and robustly discussed. I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to be so anodyne, colourless, and always on message that the occasional spirited remark results in the Spanish Inquisition? Certainly, I would understand why the person that make the remark might decline to come forward given the relentless hounding that will inevitably occur. It seems to me that what is being asked for by some is more than can be reasonably expected from a human being. Personally, speaking as a Wikimedia donor and a member of the community, I prefer to be lead by fallible human beings rather than robots. Cheers, Craig On 7 April 2014 19:46, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: Hello, I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Kind regards Ziko Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder : Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support just becomes a box to check. Fred This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who cares. I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/ Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe -- Dr. Ziko van Dijk Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://wikimedia.nl ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of fuck the community? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563 Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de wrote: Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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 -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Chris Keating wrote: This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you. What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite of the original meaning. The discussion was about what are the goals of the Wikimedia Organizations?. Why do they exist? If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make organizations think a little more about the communities instead of sheer free knowledge production. In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to speak a lot :() you could say that I said let's disband all Wikimedia Organizations. Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the case here, to change it's true meaning. No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we are all part of that community. Best, -- Christophe On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Chris Keating wrote: This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you. What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Hi All, I was not present at this meeting, but gather that it was a weekend that was valued by all that attended. As Chris has already indicated, he does not agree with the remark and I think that all of us disagree with the remar (and that is discounting the fact that the whole statement is taken out of context which makes a big difference) But in the middle of a heated discussion, things get said. Chris has indicated that one of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. And I agree that I would be terrible to break this confidentiality as this would severely limit the effectiveness of future sessions within the movement because feel people that they cannot be frank. As a movement we have a tremendous challenge ahead of us in the coming years, and we need open interaction amongst the different entities in order to make progress on these goals. Are we really interested in a movement where all volunteer board members are constantly being politically correct and cannot misspeak (whereas other community members can?). I for one would enjoy an open environment rather than a punishing one which closely resembles some of the political environments we read so much about. Can we assume that the feedback has already reached the person in question (and the person probably got more than enough feedback during and after the session). Does it really benefit us as a movement to force this person to resign or be publicly shamed? Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees PS: whenever Christophe speaks I would be likely to cheer, only to realise minutes later… “What the #(*$ did I just agree with?” ;) On 07 Apr 2014, at 13:54, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite of the original meaning. The discussion was about what are the goals of the Wikimedia Organizations?. Why do they exist? If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make organizations think a little more about the communities instead of sheer free knowledge production. In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to speak a lot :() you could say that I said let's disband all Wikimedia Organizations. Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the case here, to change it's true meaning. No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we are all part of that community. Best, -- Christophe On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Chris Keating wrote: This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you. What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Chris On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. Sounds to me like the Wikimedian version of the Bilderberg Group. Except Bilderberg don't generally take photos of those present.[1] Is there a list of participants available at this workshop? Or is everyone who was present available to see in this photo? But seriously, Chris, who set these ground-rules? Do you think that having Bilderberg-like secrecy in the movement is a good thing? Cheers Russavia [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boards_workshop_2014_group_photo.jpg ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on. I am also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated shorn of all context. One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we all agree on, surely?). I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be anathema to us? No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun. Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of fuck the community? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563 Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de wrote: Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares
Michael, Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with public minutes) they would be required to resign their position. Making public personal attacks against community members I would say could easily be a resigning matter too. Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally created body of bureaucracy. I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread. Fae On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote: I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on. I am also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated shorn of all context. One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we all agree on, surely?). I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be anathema to us? No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun. Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of fuck the community? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563 Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de wrote: Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares
I am not sure it would qualify as a public statement rather than a sentence taken and quoted out of context from a closed meeting - in other words, it was not made at a public, accessible location, rather at a closed meeting (with limited places, an entrance fee, etc.). While there are published notes, the apparent quote is not present in them, and I would not be surprised if the person in question was merely making a point to foster debate. For what its worth, rules like the one at the meeting can in theory foster open debate on controversial topics (see e.g. the [[Chatham House Rule]]) and we should respect them. I for one would be sad if we were not able to experiment with new models that foster open debate (while still maintaining a level of transparency). Best regards, Bence On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Michael, Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with public minutes) they would be required to resign their position. Making public personal attacks against community members I would say could easily be a resigning matter too. Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally created body of bureaucracy. I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread. Fae On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote: I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on. I am also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated shorn of all context. One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we all agree on, surely?). I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be anathema to us? No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun. Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of fuck the community? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563 Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements
Re: [Wikimedia-l] United Nation of Wikimedia
Hi Ting, It's lovely to see such operatic vision! And I for one would love to see some of those things happen. But, just to bring it down a bit; the technological issues rear their ugly heads. Engineering-wise, hosting Wikipedia is a tough problem. Distributing Wikimedia hosting across the globe is very definitely a hard problem. If it could even be considered in a 5 year project scope that would be IMO an aggressive timescale :) Also, I am not sure the WMF has attitude for decentralisation to chapters; nota bene the work relating to Labs and Toolserver. So commercially that might be a tough sell. However, despite this, I hope enough people see something in your vision to push forward change. Tom On 7 April 2014 14:39, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello dear all, From 2008 on until recently the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had seen a staggering growth to fulfill its mission, and it had pulled a great deal of the resources, in money, but as well as in talent, manpower and volunteer's effort of the movement. From the beginning hosting of the Wikimedia projects was the core competency of the WMF. A big part of the WMF budget and staff is dedicated to the operation of the servers. Meanwhile the main server farm is moved from Tampa, Florida to Ashburn, Virginia. In the last years the WMF had evolved to the main development party of the MediaWiki software. The software and product development had drawn many resources and talents from around the world to San Francisco. Many developers were relocated to join the WMF team. With the increased prominence of especially Wikipedia the WMF and its projects were facing more and more legal challenges in the past years. Law suits from around the world were reported since 2005. Because of this the WMF had expanded its legal team. To improve its role as the leader of the movement and to settle the disputes between the WMF and chapters about the processing and distribution of the funding the WMF had evolved since 2010 into a grant making organization. All in all the WMF is without doubt the center peace of the movement and claims four fifth of the expanses of the entire movement. The recent dispute about the URAA motivated massive content deletions on Wikimedia Commons highlights the problem of this strong centralized approach. In basic, the storage solution of the Wikimedia projects is still a very classical approach with two central database centers, both of them located in the US. This approach had repeatedly induced conflicts about what content can be stored and what cannot. It does not reflect the international character of the projects and had repeatedly induced critics on the Wikimedia projects to be US biased and it is, measured on today's storage technology, outdated. Even though currently the US law is one of the most liberal in relation to freedom of speech it does has its bias. The US copy right law for example is meanwhile one of the most restrictive and backward looking copy right laws in the entire world. Another example of the potential hazardous result of this approach are the image files that are currently stored in the individual projects. For example on Chinese Wikipedia images that are free according to the Chinese and Taiwanese copy right laws are stored directly there, and not on Commons. These images are nevertheless not free according to the US law and are stored in servers that are located in the US and distributed from there. This poses potential problems for all parties that are involved here: for the Foundation, for the project, for the community that is curating these images and for the users that are using these images. In a larger sense the problem is not constrained to the file repositories, but also to the content. Even though the Foundation had increased its legal department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to support its community in legal conflict basically it is still working with the old strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the Foundation will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny any responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential hazards to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court suit he is probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to take the charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will. In my opinion, since the technology is ripe, it is time for the movement as a whole and WMF especially to seriously consider the approach of a distributed hosting. Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU but not in the US should be able to be stored on a server located in the EU and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from there
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program
Dear Jamie, Thanks for the report. As we are -WMAR- working on improving our Educational Program we find it very useful. However, as Anne said it would be great to know what it's exactly being reported in terms of programs in order to find out which indicator is associated to each program. Thank you!! Hope to hear from you asap. 2014-04-06 23:34 GMT-03:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: Thanks for the links to the reports, Jaime. For the overall WEP report (as opposed to the also-linked WLM report) - could you please spell out on the Wiki page exactly what programs you are talking about, and link each to their specific report? I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what is being reported as part of the WEP, what projects are affected, and which programs have more participants. Thanks! Risker/Anne On 6 April 2014 21:30, Jaime Anstee jans...@wikimedia.org wrote: Greetings, (Please pardon any cross-posting) The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on the Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM Highlights of the report include: ==Inputs== The average Wikipedia Education Program reported cost a total of almost $8,000 USD in total, and $275 each week to implement. The average Wikipedia Education Program invests a total of $67 US and 3 hours into recruiting each new editor participant. ==Participation== Program leaders reported participation rates ranging from 25 to 2,372, and programs lasted from two weeks to 21 months with an average of 37.5 weeks. ==Outputs== For the seven reported Wikipedia Education Program implementations, almost 3,000 different Wikimedia pages were created or improved. The average Wikipedia Education Program produces about 120 pages of content each week. The average program participant adds just under half a page of content to Wikipedia and creates or improves six wiki pages each week. ==Outcomes== Out of the 3,334 new editor participants in Wikipedia Education Program, 36 (1.2%) participants were active three months after the program ended; 33 (1.1%) were active six months after the programs ended. Questions are welcome and encouraged on the talk page. On behalf of the Program Evaluation team, Jaime -- Jaime Anstee, Ph.D Program Evaluation Specialist Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6869 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 https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ 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 -- Anna Torres Adell Directora Ejecutiva *A.C Wikimedia Argentina* *Imprime este correo solo si es realmente necesario* ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Hey all! As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent: @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-offpossiblebetween the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to. @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions. @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often... Cheers, gego ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
*@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants...* I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all! As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent: @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-offpossiblebetween the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to. @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions. @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often... Cheers, gego ___ 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] United Nation of Wikimedia
(Note this reply is entirely in my personal capacity, and does not in any way represent anything at all official) On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU but not in the US should of the be able to be stored on a server located in the EU and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and is used by almost all major international internet providers today. As I recall, the problem with this suggestion is that it wouldn't actually work that way. For material that's illegal in the US but legal in the EU, the US branch would be sued despite the material being hosted in the EU. And similarly, for something legal in the US but not legal in the EU, the EU branch would be sued. The end result would be that everyone everywhere would have to comply with the *most* restrictive laws, not the least. And if it did work, the individual contributors would still probably have to watch out for liability. Or is the idea here to have Wikipedia be run by a large number of different legal entities? I don't have any idea of how that might work to do more than guess that the necessary legal structure (if it's even possible) would result in something hugely complex. ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Dear all, I beg your pardon, that I have quoted this statement in my blog. As mentioned before, I had never intended to condemn anyone or even expose. It served me merely to illustrate the various points of view. The fact that this statement was highly exaggerated and was expressed in a moment of excitement, should be clear for each by now. Relating to the terms of the previously agreed-upon rules for this workshop *(You are OK to use and share the knowledge you gain, but not to make confidential details public. So you can say afterwards I know a chapter had X problem and this is what they did and it did/didn't work. But it would not be OK to post on an email list afterwards I heard Wikimedia XX had a treasurer called Joe Bloggs who stole all their money - what a bunch of idiots.)* [1] I thought it was OK this way. I suppose I should have been even more carefully. Regards, Steffen [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Information#Expectations 2014-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com: Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16: I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to be so anodyne, colourless, and always on message that the occasional spirited remark results in the Spanish Inquisition? Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla. https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/ 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 -- Steffen Prößdorf Treasurer, member of the board Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge http://wikimedia.de Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. ___ 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] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program
Hello Anne, Thank you for your interest. I have posted your question and the following response on the report's talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs_talk:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP Please continue with any further comments and dialogue there. Best regards, Jaime == For the overall WEP report could you please spell out on the Wiki page exactly what programs you are talking about, and link each to their specific report? I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what is being reported as part of the WEP, what projects are affected, and which programs have more participants. == :Program leaders who self-reported were assured their data would be reported without their program name identifiers. With this low a report count, even without program names listed in line with the data, this is very difficult to do. The implementations reported here represent program activity in the Arab world program, Czech Republic, Mexico, Nepal, Quebec, and the US/Canada. The data reported at the bottom actually have unique Report ID numbers that can be matched across the last three tables so that you can actually regenerate the dataset missing only event names (See Appendix heading More Data for the complete input, output, and outcome data used in the report). Those data include the instructor classroom count, number of program weeks, and participant counts for each implementation reported. In the future we plan to ask program leaders what level of identifiability in this reporting they are comfortable with and include identifiers in cases in which reporters volunteer to share that information publicly. :However, as there is some expressed interest in possibly comparing programs, I must restate the need for caution, at this early stage in the reporting, with such small numbers of implementers reporting (less than 10% potentially), we are aware that the data do not represent all programming, and that the data are too variable to draw comparisons between programs statistically. Further, in the case where the count of classroom varies highly across implementations, aggregate reporting of more than one-hundred classrooms is not directly comparable to the reporting of a single classroom since summative statistics from an increased number of observations generates a ''regression to the mean'' and do not make for a one-to-one comparison. :These issues as well as any other comments and/or suggestions are welcome on this talk page. __ ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
No. You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity, honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions that you thought would stay in-camera under a gentleman's agreement. To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable. It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Calling Tomasz a troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles. In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get turned around into how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking difficult questions. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct Fae On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: *@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants...* I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all! As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent: @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-offpossiblebetween the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to. @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions. @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often... Cheers, gego ___ 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 -- fae...@gmail.com
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares
On the other other hand, having any sort of Chatham House Rule in an organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one of its core tenets..think about it people.. Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the organisation has no need for any Chatham House Rule. What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret? Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: corrupts the movement by turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable. Russavia ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Way to completely miss the point. Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of views. Nothing anyone has said disputes that. If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On the other other hand, having any sort of Chatham House Rule in an organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one of its core tenets..think about it people.. Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the organisation has no need for any Chatham House Rule. What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret? Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: corrupts the movement by turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable. Russavia ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
I think this topic has been overblown. It's not as if anyone on this mailing list has any right or opportunity to pressure a chapter to remove a member of their Board - unless those individuals are members of the specific chapter. And really, if you're an active member of that chapter, you should already be aware of the people who are on the Board, and their general attitudes toward the community - and their definition of what they consider to be the community they're representing or interacting with. It's important to remember that there's a huge range in the extent and nature of relationships between chapters and the editorial communities to which they are most closely attached. In some cases, the chapters are made up almost entirely of active community members from a specific project; in other cases, membership and voting rights in a chapter are linked to donations or are wide open to anyone who wants to be a member, whether or not they are active participants in any WMF project. Even when chapters actively support editing community initiatives, those initiatives have to fit within the broader umbrella of the project as a whole. There are half a dozen chapters whose members are most closely affiliated with English Wikipedia, for example, so their ability to affect the broader community is small. There are examples on Meta of chapter trustees who do focus on the separation between the chapters and the editing communities, and describe where they see the two interfacing; those are public statements made by individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those. I'm not seeing a lot of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single individual for an uncontextualized comment attributed to them. Risker/Anne ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Just to clarify that I don't believe Tomasz, the original poster, was trolling. You, Ashley, have been doing so spectacularly :) On 7 Apr 2014 16:50, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: No. You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity, honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions that you thought would stay in-camera under a gentleman's agreement. To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable. It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Calling Tomasz a troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles. In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get turned around into how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking difficult questions. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct Fae On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: *@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants...* I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all! As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent: @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-offpossiblebetween the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to. @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions. @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often... Cheers, gego ___ 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] United Nation of Wikimedia
This is very interesting Ting just to reply to one (fairly minor!) part re:
WMUK WMDE strategy, I agree further sharing and coordination would be a
good thing (indeed, we did try to look to other chapters/organisations for
guidance) but I also think thinking about localisation of strategy is
important, and within the spirit of distribution. Im hoping we can discuss
both of these aspects - co-ordination, and localisation - at wmcon in
Berlin this week and would welcome thoughts on this element (on a new
thread probably).
Best
Simon
On 7 Apr 2014 16:49, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ting,
Thank you for sharing your view. It is interesting in many aspects,
and I think that I support its spirit but I feel obliged to add a
couple of points.
2014-04-07 15:39 GMT+02:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
[...]
Even though the Foundation had increased its legal
department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to support
its
community in legal conflict basically it is still working with the old
strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the
Foundation
will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny any
responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential
hazards
to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court suit he
is
probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to take the
charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will.
I can confirm that, this is precisely what Wikimedia italia is doing
right now (and rightly so) for the infamous 20 million EURO lawsuit[1]
you should already know about. Plus, the fact that we do not have any
responsibility over the projects nor we want to intervene or
manage them is in our bylaws[2] too.
It is worth adding that following the law and jurisprudence in Italy
(but mind that IANAL) the mere possession of servers can be enough for
an Italian judge to consider you responsible of the contents. That's
why Wikimedia Italia does not want any server.
Moreover, the association itself is not a legal person and its rights
and duties are exercised in the person of his legal representative,
that is the chair (in Italian, presidente) So in the aforementioned
case the lawsuit is on the shoulders and head of Frieda herself (which
was the chair and legal representative at the time).
You can imagine that in no way we can think that a single person
accepts this kind of burden (I mean, we have already received a 20M EURO
lawsuit and we don't even have any servers!).
[...]
This also means that the chapters, as far as there is one, should be
able to
take the responsibility for the content and the hosting of those servers
in
their country. They should be obliged to provide legal consultation and
defense to the community, which means a distribution of the legal defense
from a central point into the world, to the chapters and directly to the
communities. Indeed the legal consultation and protection of the
community
is in my opinion one of the most missed duty of the chapters and the
Foundation to the movement.
Well, Wikimedia Italia is providing assistance to Frieda since day 1,
of course. it is also worth mentioning that the case should reach its
end sometimes this year (it needed only 5 years)
Cristian
(speaking in my personal capacity)
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_50#Wikimedia_Italia_in_trouble
[2] {{it}} http://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Statuto
These are probably outdated:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/bylaws
We have modified our bylaws in 2009 to become a registered non-profit:
___
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] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program
Ccml,bv .. Op 7 apr. 2014 03:35 schreef Jaime Anstee jans...@wikimedia.org het volgende: Greetings, (Please pardon any cross-posting) The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on the Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM Highlights of the report include: ==Inputs== The average Wikipedia Education Program reported cost a total of almost $8,000 USD in total, and $275 each week to implement. The average Wikipedia Education Program invests a total of $67 US and 3 hours into recruiting each new editor participant. ==Participation== Program leaders reported participation rates ranging from 25 to 2,372, and programs lasted from two weeks to 21 months with an average of 37.5 weeks. ==Outputs== For the seven reported Wikipedia Education Program implementations, almost 3,000 different Wikimedia pages were created or improved. The average Wikipedia Education Program produces about 120 pages of content each week. The average program participant adds just under half a page of content to Wikipedia and creates or improves six wiki pages each week. ==Outcomes== Out of the 3,334 new editor participants in Wikipedia Education Program, 36 (1.2%) participants were active three months after the program ended; 33 (1.1%) were active six months after the programs ended. Questions are welcome and encouraged on the talk page. On behalf of the Program Evaluation team, Jaime -- Jaime Anstee, Ph.D Program Evaluation Specialist Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6869 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 https://donate.wikimedia.org/* ___ 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] United Nation of Wikimedia
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU but not in the US should of the be able to be stored on a server located in the EU and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and is used by almost all major international internet providers today. As I recall, the problem with this suggestion is that it wouldn't actually work that way. Something like this could work. For material that's illegal in the US but legal in the EU, MediaWiki could be designed to more flexibly look for material from multiple sources. This can be host-neutral. the US branch would be sued despite the material being hosted in the EU. if it did work, the individual contributors would still probably have to watch out for liability. There are problems to overcome. As we have seen, people are sometimes sued even where there is no legal case against them. And sometimes the Internet itself is challenged, ISPs are pressured to change their policies, over content issues. But if you live in a country where a file is legal to copy and share online, and you copy it to a server/website in that country while correctly indicating its (c) status, it is difficult to find fault with that. How these local websites interact with one another, or with international requests for geo-blocking, or with client readers and international websites that help aggregate their contents, is a trickier question. A properly designed distributed system could go a long way towards addressing some of the issues noted above. And in the long run this would make the projects more robust against certain attacks that (even with multiple server farms) we are currently vulnerable to. Thanks, Ting, for starting this thread. SJ ___ 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] United Nation of Wikimedia
Why not? Peter - Original Message - From: Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 3:39 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] United Nation of Wikimedia Hello dear all, From 2008 on until recently the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had seen a staggering growth to fulfill its mission, and it had pulled a great deal of the resources, in money, but as well as in talent, manpower and volunteer's effort of the movement. From the beginning hosting of the Wikimedia projects was the core competency of the WMF. A big part of the WMF budget and staff is dedicated to the operation of the servers. Meanwhile the main server farm is moved from Tampa, Florida to Ashburn, Virginia. In the last years the WMF had evolved to the main development party of the MediaWiki software. The software and product development had drawn many resources and talents from around the world to San Francisco. Many developers were relocated to join the WMF team. With the increased prominence of especially Wikipedia the WMF and its projects were facing more and more legal challenges in the past years. Law suits from around the world were reported since 2005. Because of this the WMF had expanded its legal team. To improve its role as the leader of the movement and to settle the disputes between the WMF and chapters about the processing and distribution of the funding the WMF had evolved since 2010 into a grant making organization. All in all the WMF is without doubt the center peace of the movement and claims four fifth of the expanses of the entire movement. The recent dispute about the URAA motivated massive content deletions on Wikimedia Commons highlights the problem of this strong centralized approach. In basic, the storage solution of the Wikimedia projects is still a very classical approach with two central database centers, both of them located in the US. This approach had repeatedly induced conflicts about what content can be stored and what cannot. It does not reflect the international character of the projects and had repeatedly induced critics on the Wikimedia projects to be US biased and it is, measured on today's storage technology, outdated. Even though currently the US law is one of the most liberal in relation to freedom of speech it does has its bias. The US copy right law for example is meanwhile one of the most restrictive and backward looking copy right laws in the entire world. Another example of the potential hazardous result of this approach are the image files that are currently stored in the individual projects. For example on Chinese Wikipedia images that are free according to the Chinese and Taiwanese copy right laws are stored directly there, and not on Commons. These images are nevertheless not free according to the US law and are stored in servers that are located in the US and distributed from there. This poses potential problems for all parties that are involved here: for the Foundation, for the project, for the community that is curating these images and for the users that are using these images. In a larger sense the problem is not constrained to the file repositories, but also to the content. Even though the Foundation had increased its legal department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to support its community in legal conflict basically it is still working with the old strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the Foundation will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny any responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential hazards to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court suit he is probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to take the charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will. In my opinion, since the technology is ripe, it is time for the movement as a whole and WMF especially to seriously consider the approach of a distributed hosting. Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU but not in the US should be able to be stored on a server located in the EU and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and is used by almost all major international internet providers today. This also means that the chapters, as far as there is one, should be able to take the responsibility for the content and the hosting of those servers in their country. They should be obliged to provide legal consultation and defense to the community, which means a distribution of the legal defense from a central point into the world, to the chapters and directly to the communities. Indeed the legal
[Wikimedia-l] New board Wikimedia Nederland
It is with great pleasure that I present to you the new board of Wikimedia Netherlands (WMNL). During our General Assembly of March 29, 2014 the following persons were elected for a new term of 1 year. - Ronn Boef - new Board member - Jan Anton Brouwer - Treasurer, board member since 2013 - Justus de Bruijn - new Board member - André Engels - Secretary of the Board, new Board member - Frans Grijzenhout - Chair, Secretary since 2013, Board member since 2012 - Ad Huikeshoven - Board member since 2012 - Marlon Thé - new Board member André en Ronn have been active Wikipedians for a long time and we are glad that they are willing to serve the community in a different role. Justus and Marlon are new to the Wikimedia community but both have a track record in serving volunteer organizations. The general meeting gave a warm applause to the two board members that stepped down after serving the community for many years: Ziko van Dijk, Board member and Chair since 2011 and Paul Becherer, who served as Secretary of the Board and as Treasurer since 2010. They have led the Dutch chapter in an outstanding way during turbulent years. Frans Grijzenhout -- *Frans Grijzenhout*, chair fr...@wikimedia.nl +31 6 5333 9499 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://www.wikimedia.nl/ ___ 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] New board Wikimedia Nederland
Frans, Congratulations on your new role and I wish you and your team of boardmembers all the best, Jane 2014-04-07 22:26 GMT+02:00, Frans Grijzenhout fr...@wikimedia.nl: It is with great pleasure that I present to you the new board of Wikimedia Netherlands (WMNL). During our General Assembly of March 29, 2014 the following persons were elected for a new term of 1 year. - Ronn Boef - new Board member - Jan Anton Brouwer - Treasurer, board member since 2013 - Justus de Bruijn - new Board member - André Engels - Secretary of the Board, new Board member - Frans Grijzenhout - Chair, Secretary since 2013, Board member since 2012 - Ad Huikeshoven - Board member since 2012 - Marlon Thé - new Board member André en Ronn have been active Wikipedians for a long time and we are glad that they are willing to serve the community in a different role. Justus and Marlon are new to the Wikimedia community but both have a track record in serving volunteer organizations. The general meeting gave a warm applause to the two board members that stepped down after serving the community for many years: Ziko van Dijk, Board member and Chair since 2011 and Paul Becherer, who served as Secretary of the Board and as Treasurer since 2010. They have led the Dutch chapter in an outstanding way during turbulent years. Frans Grijzenhout -- *Frans Grijzenhout*, chair fr...@wikimedia.nl +31 6 5333 9499 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://www.wikimedia.nl/ ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians? Let her air her thoughts. Or has that also become forbidden? M. El 07/04/2014 12:16 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió: Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz ___ 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 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Carlos M. Colina wrote: I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians? Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots! Tomasz ___ 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] New board Wikimedia Nederland
Likewise! Thank you, Frans and all. Sam On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: Frans, Congratulations on your new role and I wish you and your team of boardmembers all the best, Jane 2014-04-07 22:26 GMT+02:00, Frans Grijzenhout fr...@wikimedia.nl: It is with great pleasure that I present to you the new board of Wikimedia Netherlands (WMNL). During our General Assembly of March 29, 2014 the following persons were elected for a new term of 1 year. - Ronn Boef - new Board member - Jan Anton Brouwer - Treasurer, board member since 2013 - Justus de Bruijn - new Board member - André Engels - Secretary of the Board, new Board member - Frans Grijzenhout - Chair, Secretary since 2013, Board member since 2012 - Ad Huikeshoven - Board member since 2012 - Marlon Thé - new Board member André en Ronn have been active Wikipedians for a long time and we are glad that they are willing to serve the community in a different role. Justus and Marlon are new to the Wikimedia community but both have a track record in serving volunteer organizations. The general meeting gave a warm applause to the two board members that stepped down after serving the community for many years: Ziko van Dijk, Board member and Chair since 2011 and Paul Becherer, who served as Secretary of the Board and as Treasurer since 2010. They have led the Dutch chapter in an outstanding way during turbulent years. Frans Grijzenhout -- *Frans Grijzenhout*, chair fr...@wikimedia.nl +31 6 5333 9499 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://www.wikimedia.nl/ ___ 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 -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are overreacting over it. M. El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió: Carlos M. Colina wrote: I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians? Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots! Tomasz ___ 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 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here? Thanks, Mike On 7 Apr 2014, at 22:38, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote: Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are overreacting over it. M. El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió: Carlos M. Colina wrote: I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians? Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots! Tomasz ___ 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 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
On 7 April 2014 22:40, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here? This year, Fae and Russavia. - 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] Fuck the community, who cares
On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here? There used to be intelligent conversation on wikimedia-l? As I remember it foundation-l was always famous for a seemingly endless supply of controversy (mostly hyperbole), conspiracy, pedantry and he-said-she-said petty attacks. I don't think there ever was a 'good old days', only the protagonists change. Unless that was the point you were actually making? :-) -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ 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] Fuck the community, who cares
With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the basis for their own position. Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits and edits. Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos, one after another and upload them? I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. h Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: Hoi, What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz ___ 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] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation
Pete Forsyth wrote: ... there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're related to our vision, our mission, our strategic plan, and our model of community governance. Any new set of potential advocacy topics based on no editor growth instead of exponential editor growth should be reviewed for legality, compatibility with vision and mission, but not strategy or governance, because choices made for those topics are necessarily influenced by the volunteer growth rate. Thereby circular dependency in reasoning can be avoided. If someone implies that some of them are illegal or incompatible with vision or mission without saying which ones or why, then I generally don't take them seriously. People have had plenty of time to raise specific objections for specific reasons, and over time the extent to which they have or have not becomes significant. And I agree with James Alexander's concern about spreading effort too thin, which is why I've been trying to encourage ranking the combined set at http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft which has been picking up a little lately. So I hope the Foundation will survey an accurately representative cross-section of volunteers to find their relative preferences on a set of advocacy topics which assumes no editor growth instead of exponential editor growth. Any such survey would have design trade-offs involving how much to weigh preferences by volunteer effort, and I very much want to move on to that topic, except for the fact that it should be possible to collect that data and decide later by looking at how different rankings turn out. Which may be the only way to do it, because I can't figure out how to decide how much more important someone's opinion should be if they've made thousands of edits compared to someone who's made a dozen. I will raise that question on wiki-research-l when I come up with something that feels like a reasonable answer two it, or a week or two if I can't. But again, the Foundation can do this and should do it. Luckily community volunteers can do it to, so if there is ever any question about fraud or misconduct, that can be audited by the community, which is what open collaborative editing is supposed to be about. Best regards, James Salsman ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
All: I have added my own timeline to the page set up to debrief the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence project: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment#Pete_Forsyth_notes I also published a response to the WMF report: http://wikistrategies.net/belfer1/ -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: We will update the wiki page at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment with more information and details. I encourage others to participate in this as a collaborative process. Thanks Erik. For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link from Erik above. Suffice to say here that we implemented the Belfer Wikipedian-in-Residence project with editing as a core activity of the WIR role, despite internal and external voices strongly advising us not to. That was a mistake, and we shouldn't have done it. I want to apologize for it, particularly to Asaf Bartov, Siko Bouterse, LiAnna Davis, Frank Schulenburg, Pete Forsyth, Lori Phillips and Liam Wyatt, who tried to guide the project in the right direction and whose voices didn't get heard. We did advise the Belfer Center and the Wikipedian-in-Residence about conflict-of-interest policies on enWP, and so far we haven't seen any evidence to suggest major problems with Timothy's edits. That said, we didn't structure the program in a way that would've appropriately mitigated the risk of problematic edits, and we wish we had. We also wish we'd been better able to support our partner organizations in understanding and navigating community policies and best practices. Thanks, Sue ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
Annd queue crickets. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: All: I have added my own timeline to the page set up to debrief the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence project: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment#Pete_Forsyth_notes I also published a response to the WMF report: http://wikistrategies.net/belfer1/ -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: We will update the wiki page at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment with more information and details. I encourage others to participate in this as a collaborative process. Thanks Erik. For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link from Erik above. Suffice to say here that we implemented the Belfer Wikipedian-in-Residence project with editing as a core activity of the WIR role, despite internal and external voices strongly advising us not to. That was a mistake, and we shouldn't have done it. I want to apologize for it, particularly to Asaf Bartov, Siko Bouterse, LiAnna Davis, Frank Schulenburg, Pete Forsyth, Lori Phillips and Liam Wyatt, who tried to guide the project in the right direction and whose voices didn't get heard. We did advise the Belfer Center and the Wikipedian-in-Residence about conflict-of-interest policies on enWP, and so far we haven't seen any evidence to suggest major problems with Timothy's edits. That said, we didn't structure the program in a way that would've appropriately mitigated the risk of problematic edits, and we wish we had. We also wish we'd been better able to support our partner organizations in understanding and navigating community policies and best practices. Thanks, Sue ___ 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
