Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
Hi, 2014-06-27 5:57 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will be made along the way. Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed, for real. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its identity. So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute? We have a collection of processes that has been good enough to get us to where we are today. I don't think anybody believes it's perfect, but it's gotten us this far. What, pray tell, would be the better approach? Do you really think that if you present a better idea, it will be rejected? Do you think we *enjoy* sifting through the details of a zillion files, and comparing them to a zillion copyright laws, personality rights laws, FOP laws, etc.? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd much rather be creating content than curating it. But curation is the glaring, everyday need at Commons, so I pitch in. It's also absolutely crucial to keep my house from turning into a garbage dump...which is why I take the garbage out every week. But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective advocates for our cause. Good God, Erik. Seriously, with the name-calling? Seriously? I don't know why you did it to begin with, but since you have, please share with us who the zealots are, and give some evidence of zealous behavior. If the zealotry is as obvious as you seem to assume, we should have no trouble running those ne'erdowells out on a rail. But the reality, I think, is much more straightforward: this club of zealots is a figment of your imagination. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] Pete, Erik is exactly right here, in this precise case. Here LGA tagged, and Fastily deleted 50 years old images from the Israeli government and army on the reason that as no proof of publication were given, these images were unpublished, and therefore still in copyright in USA. As several contributors have explained, these famous images were given to the press for publication 50 years ago. At the same time, Russavia wrote a request for deletion for recent images from the Israeli government or army, which were copied from Flickr, on the claim that a proper CC release was not provided. A letter from the Israeli government was uploaded to Commons, saying the Israeli government does not claim on copyright on these images. This letter was speedy deleted by Fastily, again. So clearly these requests for deletion, and these deletions are spurious. Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
Pete Forsyth wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will be made along the way. Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed, for real. Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful. Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real. I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] First _draft_ goals for WMF engineering/product
Erik Moeller, 27/06/2014 03:55: As an update on the goals process for WMF engineering, we've begun fleshing out out the top priorities for the first quarter. This has already been an interesting and useful exercise, I feel. Those are indeed goals which need help from everyone who can. Which brings me to: [...] - The content API that Gabriel is working on ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Content_API ) is called out as a top priority. This is because the Parsoid output (for which the content API will be a high performance front-end) is now getting to the point where it's starting to become plausible to increasingly use it not just for VisualEditor, but also for views as well. This is something I encourage everyone on this list to play with. I spent a couple days on Parsoid's output for it.wiki and it's been fun, finding many things to report: while reasonable pages are rarely very broken, on a random page there is some 50 % chance of finding some visual glitch. My favourite toy to this purpose is Kiwix: * download a recent file for your favourite wiki at http://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/ , * download Kiwix to open it http://download.kiwix.org/nightly/bin/latest/ , * start pressing random page and report surprises e.g. to https://sourceforge.net/p/kiwix/bugs/ Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review of the Foundation's Analytics team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/June_2014 . On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi folks, to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the Board [1]: - Visual Editor - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity I'm proposing the following initial schedule: January: - Editor Engagement Experiments February: - Visual Editor - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) March: - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) - Funds Dissemination Committee We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on their recent progress, which will help set some context that would otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here which we can use to discuss the concept further: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews The internal review will, at minimum, include: Sue Gardner myself Howie Fung Team members and relevant director(s) Designated minute-taker So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, compared with goals - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? - Review of challenges, blockers and successes - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other action items - Buffer time, debriefing Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in engineering. As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can help inform and support reviews across the organization. Feedback and questions are appreciated. All best, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image) Childish fears indeed. Magnus ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
Aren't you mixing things a little bit ? Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the right direction. Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position: Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very helpfull. The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least confusing and a open door to problems. The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste. Pleclown. Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Pete Forsyth wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will be made along the way. Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed, for real. Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful. Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real. I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image) Childish fears indeed. Magnus Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further, forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of selfies. People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They even do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired by the arguments, Legal released [1]. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership Jee Regards, Jeevan Jose On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote: Aren't you mixing things a little bit ? Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the right direction. Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position: Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very helpfull. The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least confusing and a open door to problems. The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste. Pleclown. Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Pete Forsyth wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will be made along the way. Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed, for real. Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful. Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real. I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it is not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they know better. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeevan Jose Sent: 27 June 2014 10:46 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image) Childish fears indeed. Magnus Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further, forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of selfies. People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They even do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired by the arguments, Legal released [1]. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership Jee Regards, Jeevan Jose On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote: Aren't you mixing things a little bit ? Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the right direction. Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position: Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very helpfull. The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least confusing and a open door to problems. The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste. Pleclown. Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Pete Forsyth wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will be made along the way. Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed, for real. Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful. Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real. I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it is not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they know better. Cheers, Peter That message on their every advice as part of [1] because they can't advise the community. Jee 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
MMORPG players :-( Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 27 June 2014 14:18, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: Hi again Luis, Thank you for commenting my open letter to Lila. I guess if I send an open letter I should expect open responses, however I surely hope Lila will speak on the matter, yea, nay, or not of concern to me, as I asked. Yes, I recall your previous response to my previous email (which was actually larger in scope, criticizing the now-effective overall privacy policy, whereas I now focus on the access-to-non-public information sub-policy, not yet in effect). In it you said the policies would never attain perfection. Below you assert there is no magical answer. These are examples of thought-terminating cliches. Presented with reasoned criticism of the policies, you attempt to stop discussion by saying they can never be perfect or magical. To give you credit, a lot of times thought-terminating cliches are effective in debate with non-lawyers. I'm going to go ahead and answer your perhaps when we next look at the question in a few years with the obvious observation that the procedures the policy lays out now are going to affect contributors mightily within the next few years. The access policy is not effective yet and can still be amended. So I'm going to resist your kicking the can down the road a few years. Now, to dig into the actual merits of what you say, I respond that these policies were not discussed extensively with the community. You obtained input almost exclusively from the *administrative subset* of the community, and none no more so than the individuals that currently have or stand to obtain the accesses in question. Should we be surprised that they prefer anonymity for themselves, as they explore the IPs and browser signatures and so on of the rank and file content editors? No. The community according to Lila is *all* the editors, a mere fraction (though powerful) of which are the insider and involved administrative types that commented on the policy drafts. I'm confident you'll agree that this distinction is more or less accurate, that in fact it is the administrative participants particularly that tend to comment this stuff, and not so much representatives of the great masses of content editors that actually built Wikipedia. Please do not gloss over this distinction in the future when claiming immense community participation. I'm not saying it's your fault that the discussion wasn't representative though. I'm just saying that's how it is. Neither am I faulting, or at least I shouldn't fault, anything about Michelle Paulson's hard work on the matter. I think the bad decision to accord anonymity to the checkusers and so forth was made higher up. In fact it's interesting to look back in the discussion to see what she said: 1) We do not believe that the current practices regarding collection and retention of community member identification are in compliance with the Board’s current Access to nonpublic data policy and hoped to bring the policy and practices closer to fulfilling the original intent of the policy ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Archives/2014#Rethinking_the_access_policy:_Response_to_recent_feedback). What she's saying is that WMF Legal became uncomfortable with the fact that what the responsible individuals were doing with the identifications (shredding, deleting) was at odds with what the policy clearly stated to editors was the case (identifying). Faced with this problem, there were two ways to go: 1) change the practice to conform with the policy (i.e. start securely keeping the identifications), or 2) change the policy to conform to the practice (i.e. grant anonymity to those granted access to non-anonymous information of others). What I am saying here, and if Lila is reading this far, is that you chose the wrong option. This email is already long, and I am not going to start commenting again why I think the administrative culture has attracted exactly the wrong kind of people, cyber-bullies, MMORPG players, creepers, and that this change to the policy is going to magnify that. I guess I'll just close by saying that it is not that hard to buy a secure file cabinet for the identification faxes and, say, the removable hard-drive containing the identification emails. There aren't all that great
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
Trillium, Let's be clear about a few things. The only data that checkusers get is a subset of the data that the WMF webservers (and all other webservers throughout the Internet) collect on all visitors. This is data that is voluntarily disclosed by readers (although they may not all be aware of it). The checkusers get substantially less information than is actually available, and only on those users who *edit* and not those who simply view. That means that while you are correct, the Wikimedia community at large certainly includes all readers, only editors are stakeholders in the exposure of certain data to checkusers. There is no legal requirement in the U.S. to make this information invisible (AFAIK). The only limitations are those imposed by the Terms of Service. The previous privacy policy referred to the identification of volunteers to whom certain limited information is exposed, but when Michelle and others said that the policy itself wasn't being effectively enforced more was at issue than how (or if) the IDs were stored. The WMF has never had a method of verifying received identification. Because of the international nature of the movement, IDs were submitted in languages no one at the WMF speaks, from countries and authorities around the world. As a result, anyone could easily submit a false, altered or misleading identification. The identities provided by users with advanced permissions could never be relied upon. So if you want to argue that such users should be positively identified, then please make some practical suggestions (which you have conspicuously avoided doing so far). How should identities be confirmed? In what circumstances should the ID information be disclosed, and to whom? What, fundamentally, is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? What are the use cases in which it is necessary? Thanks in advance for providing us with such useful advice! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
Hi again Luis, Thank you for commenting my open letter to Lila. I guess if I send an open letter I should expect open responses, however I surely hope Lila will speak on the matter, yea, nay, or not of concern to me, as I asked. Yes, I recall your previous response to my previous email (which was actually larger in scope, criticizing the now-effective overall privacy policy, whereas I now focus on the access-to-non-public information sub-policy, not yet in effect). In it you said the policies would never attain perfection. Below you assert there is no magical answer. These are examples of thought-terminating cliches. Presented with reasoned criticism of the policies, you attempt to stop discussion by saying they can never be perfect or magical. To give you credit, a lot of times thought-terminating cliches are effective in debate with non-lawyers. I'm going to go ahead and answer your perhaps when we next look at the question in a few years with the obvious observation that the procedures the policy lays out now are going to affect contributors mightily within the next few years. The access policy is not effective yet and can still be amended. So I'm going to resist your kicking the can down the road a few years. Now, to dig into the actual merits of what you say, I respond that these policies were not discussed extensively with the community. You obtained input almost exclusively from the *administrative subset* of the community, and none no more so than the individuals that currently have or stand to obtain the accesses in question. Should we be surprised that they prefer anonymity for themselves, as they explore the IPs and browser signatures and so on of the rank and file content editors? No. The community according to Lila is *all* the editors, a mere fraction (though powerful) of which are the insider and involved administrative types that commented on the policy drafts. I'm confident you'll agree that this distinction is more or less accurate, that in fact it is the administrative participants particularly that tend to comment this stuff, and not so much representatives of the great masses of content editors that actually built Wikipedia. Please do not gloss over this distinction in the future when claiming immense community participation. I'm not saying it's your fault that the discussion wasn't representative though. I'm just saying that's how it is. Neither am I faulting, or at least I shouldn't fault, anything about Michelle Paulson's hard work on the matter. I think the bad decision to accord anonymity to the checkusers and so forth was made higher up. In fact it's interesting to look back in the discussion to see what she said: 1) We do not believe that the current practices regarding collection and retention of community member identification are in compliance with the Board’s current Access to nonpublic data policy and hoped to bring the policy and practices closer to fulfilling the original intent of the policy (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Archives/2014#Rethinking_the_access_policy:_Response_to_recent_feedback). What she's saying is that WMF Legal became uncomfortable with the fact that what the responsible individuals were doing with the identifications (shredding, deleting) was at odds with what the policy clearly stated to editors was the case (identifying). Faced with this problem, there were two ways to go: 1) change the practice to conform with the policy (i.e. start securely keeping the identifications), or 2) change the policy to conform to the practice (i.e. grant anonymity to those granted access to non-anonymous information of others). What I am saying here, and if Lila is reading this far, is that you chose the wrong option. This email is already long, and I am not going to start commenting again why I think the administrative culture has attracted exactly the wrong kind of people, cyber-bullies, MMORPG players, creepers, and that this change to the policy is going to magnify that. I guess I'll just close by saying that it is not that hard to buy a secure file cabinet for the identification faxes and, say, the removable hard-drive containing the identification emails. There aren't all that great many checkusers and oversighters and OTRS volunteers and so forth, and they're not being added that fast. The existing ones can be accounted for in stages. So these practical difficulties you refer to Luis, I don't see them as so severe. As for the risks to volunteers what are you saying? Are you saying the WMF cannot securely keep some copies of identifications? The real volunteers at risk are those rank and file editors you propose to expose to a group of anonymous and unaccountable administrative participants. Trillium Corsage 27.06.2014, 01:48, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org: Hi, Trillium- As I pointed out to you the last time we discussed the privacy
[Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise. We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus attention on the discussion on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour Michael. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
@Nathan You said so if you want to argue that such users should be positively identified, then please make some practical suggestions (which you have conspicuously avoided doing so far). How should identities be confirmed? In what circumstances should the ID information be disclosed, and to whom? What, fundamentally, is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? What are the use cases in which it is necessary? It would be a good faith evaluation of the copy of the identification document provided. There's no need to be quarrelsome about the practical suggestions I've conspicuously avoided. I did at least suggest a secure filing cabinet and making use of a removable hard-drive. As to the precise criteria by which an identification document is deemed good enough, I'd suppose those would be developed on a good faith basis by the action officer. Nobody is depending on perfection by that individual. The principle would be that the document appears genuine, has the minimum elements settled on by the policy (name, age, address, possibly other elements). If the document is in a foreign language, say Swahili, and the WMF person can't read that, I would think it would be a do the best you can and file it by respective Wikipedia and username. None of these are insurmountable obstacles. The answer to this is hard is not well, let's just stop doing it. The answer is this is important, let's just do the best we can. I have called for a basic examination of the document, not any verification process. I'd suppose if the document looked suspect in some way, then a telephone call or follow-up could be done, and that would be a verification, but I would expect that to be the exception, not the rule. Again, these details would be settled by the hands-on person, not by me attempting to write a ten-page standard operating procedure while Nathan zings me with what are your specifics on the mailing list. What is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? Well, I thought the premise here was obvious. It was obvious enough to those that crafted the previous policy in the first place. It establishes some level of accountability to those individuals accorded access to the personally-identifying information of editors. Personal accountability encourages acting with self-control and restraint. With apologies to the other person that responded, anonymity encourages a care-free and unrestricted handling of that data, and in fact to some of these people it indeed yields a MMORPG (multimedia online roleplaying game) environment, and they will do whatever they want, because they are free from accountability. The other key aspect of usefulness is to the rank and file editors. They will feel better knowing that if some creepazoid or cyberbully starts going over their IPs, and of course Googling and otherwise sleuthing for more on them, that at least the WMF knows who they are, and the rank and file editor potentially has some recourse if it finally comes to it. So I say the usefulness there is treating editors right and furnishing a safer environment for them, in which they are not so exposed to anonymous administrators. Thank you for your response. Trillium Corsage (by the way although Trillium is a type of flower, I am in fact a dude. So please use male pronouns if it occurs to you. It was just an email address I picked sort of randomly and then I ran with it as pseudonym). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons, particularly the discussion around alternative methods of making not-purely-free files available and searchable across Commons. As you can see from the growing discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the only problem. It's merely the best recent example. The discussion you propose on Commons appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a discussion like that should exist (though I object to your presumption (and odders) that the URAA RfC is discredited or nullified either by the way it was closed or by a follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But the content of the various tragedy of Commons threads on this list and others is broader and attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded problems in the Commons culture. So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons administrators to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion on this list (or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the Commons admin noticeboard. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
Correction - the first line should read available and searchable across WMF projects. Apologies for double posting. On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons, particularly the discussion around alternative methods of making not-purely-free files available and searchable across Commons. As you can see from the growing discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the only problem. It's merely the best recent example. The discussion you propose on Commons appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a discussion like that should exist (though I object to your presumption (and odders) that the URAA RfC is discredited or nullified either by the way it was closed or by a follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But the content of the various tragedy of Commons threads on this list and others is broader and attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded problems in the Commons culture. So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons administrators to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion on this list (or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the Commons admin noticeboard. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
Several people have replied to my latest message. I'd like to reiterate - I thought I was clear, but just to be certain: I have never claimed that all discussion on Commons is perfect, or that incivility or poor decisions never occur there. I did not intend to open this discussion as a free-for-all, for *any* list member with a problem with a Commons user or decision to bring it up for critique. I think there are better venues for that. What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a CLUB OF ZEALOTS (emphasis mine). Since it now looks unlikely that we'll have a response from Erik, and since several people seem to have misunderstood what I meant, let me make myself very clear. I believe that the community of volunteers who have created Wikimedia are its greatest asset, and in spite of all its (well known and documented) problems, offer the greatest hope for Wikimedia to overcome its many challenges and flourish. I believe that the people who choose to devote time to Wikimedia as volunteers, by and large, do so out of a desire to bring our shared vision -- a world in which everyone freely shares knowledge -- closer to reality. I believe that organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation, which intend to support that vision, have the potential to be effective if they can speak to that shared vision, and undermine their own influence when they undercut it. Lest anybody mistake this for a personal attack, I'd like to add the following. I have known and admired Erik for many years. He has done tremendous good for the Wikimedia movement, and for the world, and my respect for him is unwavering. However, in recent months, he has joined other organizational leaders in leveling broad and unfounded insults at the volunteer community that has produced Wikimedia Commons, of which I am one. I do not think Erik intends harm by doing this, but I think the primary outcome of this approach is harm. I am confident he is proceeding in a direction that he believes is positive. But I very strongly disagree with that, and I do not think Commons volunteers (or any Wikimedia volunteers) should have to endure broad insults coming from the leaders of an organization that, in theory, exists to support their work. I believe this issue is much more significant than any of the other issues that have been discussed in this thread. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote: Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise. We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus attention on the discussion on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour Michael. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] First _draft_ goals for WMF engineering/product
I'm delighted to see a document that is clear enough to encourage useful comments from non-techies (on some parts of it) I have 5, at increasing levels of specificity 1) At least in the US, the need for increasing contributions by underrepresented groups is not limited to women. Various ethnic groups in the US are even more under=represented. But I'm not sure how much of this is solvable by technology, either for them or for women. 2) The user retention goals are not the province of engineering alone, or even for the most part. Attracting initial contributors will indeed be greatly helped by Visual editor, but the enWP people will need considerable convincing about both features and interaction with the current editor and current procedures before doing what most needs to be done, making it the default for non-loggged in users. The other aspects are primarily that of improving the social environment and on-wiki processes at the individual WPs Commons, and more effective work by the various chapters and associated projects. Flow will be of some help here, but it isn't the critical factor. I d I think the decline not only may be irreversible but ought to be expected to be irreversible: WP is no longer the most exciting thing in the world to the extent that it can have the same attractive power as in the first few years. 3)I have never understood the need for Flow- I find the existing talk page systems quite functional. But since many others don't find the current system satisfactory. the one place Flow should not be trialed on the enWP is the Teahouse, which has its own distinctive system. It should rather be trialed on places where there is long and particularly intricate discussions and were beginners are not likely to be confused. 4) The most intractable conflicts at enWP arise from the need to apply brief descriptive phrases or words to situations that ae inherently ambiguous. A system for category searching by intersection would eliminate about half the problems. 5) Perhaps this should be put off till the following year, but a system for constructing articles from infoboxes populated by wikidata would essentially give a fill in the blanks interface for constructing many types of articles. This would help beginners, and people writing in other than their native languages., On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Erik Moeller, 27/06/2014 03:55: As an update on the goals process for WMF engineering, we've begun fleshing out out the top priorities for the first quarter. This has already been an interesting and useful exercise, I feel. Those are indeed goals which need help from everyone who can. Which brings me to: [...] - The content API that Gabriel is working on ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Content_API ) is called out as a top priority. This is because the Parsoid output (for which the content API will be a high performance front-end) is now getting to the point where it's starting to become plausible to increasingly use it not just for VisualEditor, but also for views as well. This is something I encourage everyone on this list to play with. I spent a couple days on Parsoid's output for it.wiki and it's been fun, finding many things to report: while reasonable pages are rarely very broken, on a random page there is some 50 % chance of finding some visual glitch. My favourite toy to this purpose is Kiwix: * download a recent file for your favourite wiki at http://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/ , * download Kiwix to open it http://download.kiwix.org/nightly/bin/latest/ , * start pressing random page and report surprises e.g. to https://sourceforge.net/p/kiwix/bugs/ Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] The tragedy of Commons
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a CLUB OF ZEALOTS (emphasis mine). Please stop asking explanation from people who are coming to Commons with a helping mind. I agree his comment had a insisting tone. But does Commoners are too immature to tolerate any small criticism? If we start attacking people and ask explanation or apology for every comment they make, no one is going to visit Commons. Instead we should welcome Erik, SJ, Jimmy or any body else who have an idea to improve Commons. Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] First _draft_ goals for WMF engineering/product
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: My favourite toy to this purpose is Kiwix: * download a recent file for your favourite wiki at http://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/ , * download Kiwix to open it http://download.kiwix.org/nightly/bin/latest/ , * start pressing random page and report surprises e.g. to https://sourceforge.net/p/kiwix/bugs/ I wrote http://nell-wikipedia.github.cscott.net a while ago with a similar goal. It is an offline wiki using parsoid output. It needs a bit of updating, since the Parsoid output has changed slightly since I wrote it. But you can also use http://parsoid.wmflabs.org/enwiki/Main_Page directly now. The Parsoid output includes a style sheet which ought to render the parsoid DOM output identically to the standard PHP page output. We're constructing a visual diff tool this quarter so that soon we should be able to do even better: testing for pixel-accurate matches against standard output. But that's not done yet, so bug reports on Parsoid output and CSS/rendering issues are still valuable. --scott -- (http://cscott.net) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Education Program update: Rod Dunican is leaving the Foundation
Dear friends and colleagues, Rod Dunican (currently the Director, Wikipedia Education Program at WMF) has announced that he is leaving the Foundation at the end of this month. We are truly sorry to see him go; he has been such a critical part of the Wikipedia Education Program and strategy for many years including his leadership of the team. We wish you the very best, Rod, and look forward to hearing of your new adventures. I am looking forward to working even more closely with the current Education team: Anna Koval, Floor Koudijs and Tighe Flanagan. All three of them have complementing skills and backgrounds, and have begun working closely and effectively with each other and with the rest of the Grantmaking team. With Rod, they have been working on an exciting shift in strategy as they have moved from a more hands-on programmatic strategy to becoming a facilitative hub in which the team supports different kinds of local education programs. This has meant that the team has been working with educational program leaders, volunteers and community organisers in over 60 countries to map their education-related activities, successes and challenges. The integration of the Wikipedia Education Program team into the GLEE team also means valuable opportunities for the different grants programs to work more closely to understand successful education programs and to support them through grants and other resources. In particular, the Education team’s focus on gender and geographic diversity as a strategy is very much shared across the broader Grantmaking department. As the team goes forward to develop a road map for the future with our community members, Floor Koudijs will be the interim Senior Manager for the Education Program. Initially the team has been assigned different parts of the world in order to create a baseline of educational programs and activities, with Floor responsible for Latin America and Western Europe, Tighe for the Arab region and Africa, and Anna for Asia and Eastern Europe. Please look at the Education portal for more details.[1] Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me, or to Floor, Tighe and Anna, for any comments or clarifications.[2] We look forward to working in partnership with our communities worldwide as we support education programs in service to the Wikimedia mission. Warmly, Anasuya [1] http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program [2] Floor: fkoud...@wikimedia.org Tighe: tflana...@wikimedia.org Anna: ako...@wikimedia.org -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Education Program update: Rod Dunican is leaving the Foundation
Thanks for the update, Anasuya. As you have probably heard, I'm currently working on an article for the Signpost about the education program, and I might have a few questions for you off-list sometime in the next several days or next week. Pine On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear friends and colleagues, Rod Dunican (currently the Director, Wikipedia Education Program at WMF) has announced that he is leaving the Foundation at the end of this month. We are truly sorry to see him go; he has been such a critical part of the Wikipedia Education Program and strategy for many years including his leadership of the team. We wish you the very best, Rod, and look forward to hearing of your new adventures. I am looking forward to working even more closely with the current Education team: Anna Koval, Floor Koudijs and Tighe Flanagan. All three of them have complementing skills and backgrounds, and have begun working closely and effectively with each other and with the rest of the Grantmaking team. With Rod, they have been working on an exciting shift in strategy as they have moved from a more hands-on programmatic strategy to becoming a facilitative hub in which the team supports different kinds of local education programs. This has meant that the team has been working with educational program leaders, volunteers and community organisers in over 60 countries to map their education-related activities, successes and challenges. The integration of the Wikipedia Education Program team into the GLEE team also means valuable opportunities for the different grants programs to work more closely to understand successful education programs and to support them through grants and other resources. In particular, the Education team’s focus on gender and geographic diversity as a strategy is very much shared across the broader Grantmaking department. As the team goes forward to develop a road map for the future with our community members, Floor Koudijs will be the interim Senior Manager for the Education Program. Initially the team has been assigned different parts of the world in order to create a baseline of educational programs and activities, with Floor responsible for Latin America and Western Europe, Tighe for the Arab region and Africa, and Anna for Asia and Eastern Europe. Please look at the Education portal for more details.[1] Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me, or to Floor, Tighe and Anna, for any comments or clarifications.[2] We look forward to working in partnership with our communities worldwide as we support education programs in service to the Wikimedia mission. Warmly, Anasuya [1] http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program [2] Floor: fkoud...@wikimedia.org Tighe: tflana...@wikimedia.org Anna: ako...@wikimedia.org -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Education Program update: Rod Dunican is leaving the Foundation
Of course, happy to hear from you as always, Pine. On Jun 27, 2014 12:39 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the update, Anasuya. As you have probably heard, I'm currently working on an article for the Signpost about the education program, and I might have a few questions for you off-list sometime in the next several days or next week. Pine On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear friends and colleagues, Rod Dunican (currently the Director, Wikipedia Education Program at WMF) has announced that he is leaving the Foundation at the end of this month. We are truly sorry to see him go; he has been such a critical part of the Wikipedia Education Program and strategy for many years including his leadership of the team. We wish you the very best, Rod, and look forward to hearing of your new adventures. I am looking forward to working even more closely with the current Education team: Anna Koval, Floor Koudijs and Tighe Flanagan. All three of them have complementing skills and backgrounds, and have begun working closely and effectively with each other and with the rest of the Grantmaking team. With Rod, they have been working on an exciting shift in strategy as they have moved from a more hands-on programmatic strategy to becoming a facilitative hub in which the team supports different kinds of local education programs. This has meant that the team has been working with educational program leaders, volunteers and community organisers in over 60 countries to map their education-related activities, successes and challenges. The integration of the Wikipedia Education Program team into the GLEE team also means valuable opportunities for the different grants programs to work more closely to understand successful education programs and to support them through grants and other resources. In particular, the Education team’s focus on gender and geographic diversity as a strategy is very much shared across the broader Grantmaking department. As the team goes forward to develop a road map for the future with our community members, Floor Koudijs will be the interim Senior Manager for the Education Program. Initially the team has been assigned different parts of the world in order to create a baseline of educational programs and activities, with Floor responsible for Latin America and Western Europe, Tighe for the Arab region and Africa, and Anna for Asia and Eastern Europe. Please look at the Education portal for more details.[1] Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me, or to Floor, Tighe and Anna, for any comments or clarifications.[2] We look forward to working in partnership with our communities worldwide as we support education programs in service to the Wikimedia mission. Warmly, Anasuya [1] http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program [2] Floor: fkoud...@wikimedia.org Tighe: tflana...@wikimedia.org Anna: ako...@wikimedia.org -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Education Program update: Rod Dunican is leaving the Foundation
As someone who worked with Rod for the last four years on the Wikipedia Education Program, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for all the strategic work, problem solving, training development, and budget wrangling he’s done behind the scenes that have made the Wikipedia Education Program what it is today. Much of this work isn’t visible to people outside the education team, but it needs to be done, and Rod’s hard work in these areas has affected all aspects of the Wikipedia Education Program. I’ve had the privilege of working with Floor, Tighe, and Anna over the last several months, and I know Rod leaves a great team in place who will carry on our mission of getting contributing to Wikimedia projects into educational settings worldwide. Rod, thanks for all your hard work over the last four years! LiAnna On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear friends and colleagues, Rod Dunican (currently the Director, Wikipedia Education Program at WMF) has announced that he is leaving the Foundation at the end of this month. We are truly sorry to see him go; he has been such a critical part of the Wikipedia Education Program and strategy for many years including his leadership of the team. We wish you the very best, Rod, and look forward to hearing of your new adventures. I am looking forward to working even more closely with the current Education team: Anna Koval, Floor Koudijs and Tighe Flanagan. All three of them have complementing skills and backgrounds, and have begun working closely and effectively with each other and with the rest of the Grantmaking team. With Rod, they have been working on an exciting shift in strategy as they have moved from a more hands-on programmatic strategy to becoming a facilitative hub in which the team supports different kinds of local education programs. This has meant that the team has been working with educational program leaders, volunteers and community organisers in over 60 countries to map their education-related activities, successes and challenges. The integration of the Wikipedia Education Program team into the GLEE team also means valuable opportunities for the different grants programs to work more closely to understand successful education programs and to support them through grants and other resources. In particular, the Education team’s focus on gender and geographic diversity as a strategy is very much shared across the broader Grantmaking department. As the team goes forward to develop a road map for the future with our community members, Floor Koudijs will be the interim Senior Manager for the Education Program. Initially the team has been assigned different parts of the world in order to create a baseline of educational programs and activities, with Floor responsible for Latin America and Western Europe, Tighe for the Arab region and Africa, and Anna for Asia and Eastern Europe. Please look at the Education portal for more details.[1] Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me, or to Floor, Tighe and Anna, for any comments or clarifications.[2] We look forward to working in partnership with our communities worldwide as we support education programs in service to the Wikimedia mission. Warmly, Anasuya [1] http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program [2] Floor: fkoud...@wikimedia.org Tighe: tflana...@wikimedia.org Anna: ako...@wikimedia.org -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation* Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l -- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org *Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lia...@wikiedu.org lia...@wikiedu.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] First _draft_ goals for WMF engineering/product
On 06/27/2014 01:51 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: My favourite toy to this purpose is Kiwix: * download a recent file for your favourite wiki at http://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/ , * download Kiwix to open it http://download.kiwix.org/nightly/bin/latest/ , * start pressing random page and report surprises e.g. to https://sourceforge.net/p/kiwix/bugs/ I wrote http://nell-wikipedia.github.cscott.net a while ago with a similar goal. It is an offline wiki using parsoid output. It needs a bit of updating, since the Parsoid output has changed slightly since I wrote it. But you can also use http://parsoid.wmflabs.org/enwiki/Main_Page directly now. The Parsoid output includes a style sheet which ought to render the parsoid DOM output identically to the standard PHP page output. We're constructing a visual diff tool this quarter so that soon we should be able to do even better: testing for pixel-accurate matches against standard output. But that's not done yet, so bug reports on Parsoid output and CSS/rendering issues are still valuable. We are beginning to get there. :-) See https://github.com/subbuss/parsoid_visual_diffs/blob/master/diffs/enwiki.Medha_Patkar.diff.jun27.jpg for the latest pixel-level visual diff on a sample page. Within the next couple weeks, we should be able to start generating these on a wider range of pages and set up regression testing on them as well to track progress. Subbu. --scott ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
