Re: [Wikimedia-l] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
Hoi, I have done a project and there were two parts to my project. There was the delivery of an input method and a font for a script that did not have any UNICODE font. At that time there was functionality for fonts. So it should have been a shoe in. The cost of the project was relatively large. This was because of the cost of producing a new font. In real world terms the font and input method were provided for a very low price.. Because of whatever internal issues, the font did not become available in MediaWiki. While waiting the partner for the project lost his subsidy and as an organisation the Royal Institute for the Tropics ended and the Tropenmuseum was merged with two other museums. This was duly mentioned at the time. I even blogged about it. As a consequence of this all my project was gone. The money was spend, the goods were available but not available to a project. I am no longer involved in Batak and have no leads to revive it. I have no intention either. Now a long time after all this I was hassled for a report. As far as I am aware I have attempted multiple iterations of a report. It did not fit the mold or whatever was wrong with it. With more reporting you get less project and more irritation. I loathe the notion that more reporting will lead to anything positive. If anything it makes sense to project manage the reports, keep a finger on the pulse. But this is a personal affair and very much NOT an administrative affair. When I am getting involved in another project I will very much try to stay away from administrative bullshit while I am very much available for personal contact. Thanks, GerardM On 31 July 2014 23:50, Jessie Wild jw...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks for listening to the presentation, Pine! There will be a more comprehensive analysis posted on Meta, but in the meantime to answer your questions: 1. I'm aware that Program Evaluation is examining the outcomes of conferences this year, and Jamie and I have discussed this in at least two places on Meta. I'm curious about if and how you plan to measure the online impact of conferences; not just what people and groups say they will do in post-survey conferences, but what they actually do online in verifiable ways in the subsequent 3-12 months. Jaime and I and the others on the Grantmaking team are working together on this, and experimenting with some different ways of evaluating the work in the few months following the conferences. One way to do this in a small experiment, for example, is to run a cohort of users who received Wikimania Scholarships through Wikimetrics at different increments throughout the year following. This is something I have been curious to do for a long time, but never had the tool to do it on an aggregate level! 2. You said in your presentation that there is no direct correlation between grant size and measurable online impact. From the slides at around the 1:13-1:15 minute marks, it looks to me like the correlation is negative, meaning that smaller grants produced disproportionately more impact. I can say that within IEG this occurred partly because we had some highly motivated and generous grantees who volunteered a considerable amount of time to work with modest amounts of money, and I don't think we should expect that level of generosity from all grantees, but I think that grantmaking committees may want (A) to take into account the level of motivation of grantees, (B) to consider breaking large block grants into discrete smaller projects with individual reporting requirements, and (C) for larger grants where there seem to be a lot of problems with reporting and a disappointing level of cost-effectiveness, to be more assertive about tying funding to demonstrated results and reliable, standardized reporting with assistance from WMF. What do you think? Well, there are definite outliers, and the slides aggregate by program type rather than by size. So, for example, several of the IEG grants were much bigger than than the majority of PEG grants. So - not exactly negative correlation (at least, we can't definitively say that). I absolutely agree with your (C) suggestion, and your (B) suggestion is very interesting too - we haven't discussed that one. It may be worth considering if there are larger project-based grants. For the annual plan grants, we have this in terms of quarterly reports (and midpoint reports for IEG), so we do try to do interventions with grantees if it looks like they are off-track. As for (A), based on what we saw through our evaluation of IEG[1], motivation is definitely important but the key difference for outlier performance was from those grantees that had *specific target audiences* identified, so they knew exactly who they wanted to be working with and how to reach those people. So, I would want committees to take into account grants with a specific target audience or specific
Re: [Wikimedia-l] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: The activity you describe is obviously unacceptable. However, the amount of time and effort that out associated with tracking down and returning a particular $20 contribution would not be worth it. Newyorkbrad Newyorkbrad, it wouldn't be all that difficult, given that the person's name is known, it was clearly done with Paypal, we have the date the donation was made, etc, etc. Furthermore, as the WMF have publicly spoken on these edits,[1] it would be amiss to condemn the edits but not disavow donations made as part of those edits. The WMF should be refunding the donation. Even more worse, the Kremlin is using the English Wikipedia to support a misinformation campaign around the shoot down of MH17 by Russian separatists in Ukraine.[1] Thankfully we have these new watchdog Twitter bots to spot interference by unsophisticated government actors, of both the playfully harmless and the dangerously harmful varieties. Nathan, it is fantastic that Jen Psaki wishes to engage with the Wikimedia community, but could you please in future ask her to send her brainfarts from her own account. :) Cheers Scotty [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/24/wikipedia-blocks-anonymous-edits-and-trolling-from-a-congressional-ip-address/ ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
We do not see any donations from anyone by that name. Best, Lisa Gruwell On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: The activity you describe is obviously unacceptable. However, the amount of time and effort that out associated with tracking down and returning a particular $20 contribution would not be worth it. Newyorkbrad Newyorkbrad, it wouldn't be all that difficult, given that the person's name is known, it was clearly done with Paypal, we have the date the donation was made, etc, etc. Furthermore, as the WMF have publicly spoken on these edits,[1] it would be amiss to condemn the edits but not disavow donations made as part of those edits. The WMF should be refunding the donation. Even more worse, the Kremlin is using the English Wikipedia to support a misinformation campaign around the shoot down of MH17 by Russian separatists in Ukraine.[1] Thankfully we have these new watchdog Twitter bots to spot interference by unsophisticated government actors, of both the playfully harmless and the dangerously harmful varieties. Nathan, it is fantastic that Jen Psaki wishes to engage with the Wikimedia community, but could you please in future ask her to send her brainfarts from her own account. :) Cheers Scotty [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/24/wikipedia-blocks-anonymous-edits-and-trolling-from-a-congressional-ip-address/ ___ 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] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
Another point to consider is that comparing grants that include staff compensation to grants that do not is necessarily tipping the scales. Volunteer time is a cost too (though borne by the volunteers themselves and not by the funder), and ignoring it in cost-benefit analysis will always give the impression that grants including staff are significantly less effective, whether or not they truly are. It may make sense to ignore it if the funder is only interested in straight impact-for-dollars; it seems to me that WMF is a funder that cares about _movement resources_, including volunteer time, and not just dollars out of its own budget. A. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jessie, Thanks for the quick reply. Issue 1 may be challenging to measure even with Wikimetrics. Can we talk about this during the Research Hackathon next week if we can set up a time off-list? Thanks for the info about issue 2. I am grateful to learn that you did an evaluation of PEG. It is interesting to compare that evaluation with the evaluation of IEG. A number of grantmaking committee members and grantees will be at Wikimania and I hope the PED team will introduce themselves and be available to discuss these studies, especially if there is a plenary meeting of all the Meta grantmaking committee members who attend Wikimania. Thanks very much, Pine On Jul 31, 2014 2:50 PM, Jessie Wild jw...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks for listening to the presentation, Pine! There will be a more comprehensive analysis posted on Meta, but in the meantime to answer your questions: 1. I'm aware that Program Evaluation is examining the outcomes of conferences this year, and Jamie and I have discussed this in at least two places on Meta. I'm curious about if and how you plan to measure the online impact of conferences; not just what people and groups say they will do in post-survey conferences, but what they actually do online in verifiable ways in the subsequent 3-12 months. Jaime and I and the others on the Grantmaking team are working together on this, and experimenting with some different ways of evaluating the work in the few months following the conferences. One way to do this in a small experiment, for example, is to run a cohort of users who received Wikimania Scholarships through Wikimetrics at different increments throughout the year following. This is something I have been curious to do for a long time, but never had the tool to do it on an aggregate level! 2. You said in your presentation that there is no direct correlation between grant size and measurable online impact. From the slides at around the 1:13-1:15 minute marks, it looks to me like the correlation is negative, meaning that smaller grants produced disproportionately more impact. I can say that within IEG this occurred partly because we had some highly motivated and generous grantees who volunteered a considerable amount of time to work with modest amounts of money, and I don't think we should expect that level of generosity from all grantees, but I think that grantmaking committees may want (A) to take into account the level of motivation of grantees, (B) to consider breaking large block grants into discrete smaller projects with individual reporting requirements, and (C) for larger grants where there seem to be a lot of problems with reporting and a disappointing level of cost-effectiveness, to be more assertive about tying funding to demonstrated results and reliable, standardized reporting with assistance from WMF. What do you think? Well, there are definite outliers, and the slides aggregate by program type rather than by size. So, for example, several of the IEG grants were much bigger than than the majority of PEG grants. So - not exactly negative correlation (at least, we can't definitively say that). I absolutely agree with your (C) suggestion, and your (B) suggestion is very interesting too - we haven't discussed that one. It may be worth considering if there are larger project-based grants. For the annual plan grants, we have this in terms of quarterly reports (and midpoint reports for IEG), so we do try to do interventions with grantees if it looks like they are off-track. As for (A), based on what we saw through our evaluation of IEG[1], motivation is definitely important but the key difference for outlier performance was from those grantees that had *specific target audiences* identified, so they knew exactly who they wanted to be working with and how to reach those people. So, I would want committees to take into account grants with a specific target audience or specific target topic area (for quality improvements, for example; we saw this for successful outreach in PEG grants[2]). More explicitly on motivation, while it is difficult to measure for new grantees, you can
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
If people are interested in the background to Gerard's rant, the grant he is talking about is [1], and the incomplete report he has been hassled about is [2]. I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss this specific example, but I welcome discussion on that grant report's talk page, and encourage anyone inclined to take Gerard at his word to look into the report in question and draw their own conclusions. A. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Gerard_Meijssen_and_Michael_Everson/Batak [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Gerard_Meijssen_and_Michael_Everson/Batak/Report On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I have done a project and there were two parts to my project. There was the delivery of an input method and a font for a script that did not have any UNICODE font. At that time there was functionality for fonts. So it should have been a shoe in. The cost of the project was relatively large. This was because of the cost of producing a new font. In real world terms the font and input method were provided for a very low price.. Because of whatever internal issues, the font did not become available in MediaWiki. While waiting the partner for the project lost his subsidy and as an organisation the Royal Institute for the Tropics ended and the Tropenmuseum was merged with two other museums. This was duly mentioned at the time. I even blogged about it. As a consequence of this all my project was gone. The money was spend, the goods were available but not available to a project. I am no longer involved in Batak and have no leads to revive it. I have no intention either. Now a long time after all this I was hassled for a report. As far as I am aware I have attempted multiple iterations of a report. It did not fit the mold or whatever was wrong with it. With more reporting you get less project and more irritation. I loathe the notion that more reporting will lead to anything positive. If anything it makes sense to project manage the reports, keep a finger on the pulse. But this is a personal affair and very much NOT an administrative affair. When I am getting involved in another project I will very much try to stay away from administrative bullshit while I am very much available for personal contact. Thanks, GerardM On 31 July 2014 23:50, Jessie Wild jw...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks for listening to the presentation, Pine! There will be a more comprehensive analysis posted on Meta, but in the meantime to answer your questions: 1. I'm aware that Program Evaluation is examining the outcomes of conferences this year, and Jamie and I have discussed this in at least two places on Meta. I'm curious about if and how you plan to measure the online impact of conferences; not just what people and groups say they will do in post-survey conferences, but what they actually do online in verifiable ways in the subsequent 3-12 months. Jaime and I and the others on the Grantmaking team are working together on this, and experimenting with some different ways of evaluating the work in the few months following the conferences. One way to do this in a small experiment, for example, is to run a cohort of users who received Wikimania Scholarships through Wikimetrics at different increments throughout the year following. This is something I have been curious to do for a long time, but never had the tool to do it on an aggregate level! 2. You said in your presentation that there is no direct correlation between grant size and measurable online impact. From the slides at around the 1:13-1:15 minute marks, it looks to me like the correlation is negative, meaning that smaller grants produced disproportionately more impact. I can say that within IEG this occurred partly because we had some highly motivated and generous grantees who volunteered a considerable amount of time to work with modest amounts of money, and I don't think we should expect that level of generosity from all grantees, but I think that grantmaking committees may want (A) to take into account the level of motivation of grantees, (B) to consider breaking large block grants into discrete smaller projects with individual reporting requirements, and (C) for larger grants where there seem to be a lot of problems with reporting and a disappointing level of cost-effectiveness, to be more assertive about tying funding to demonstrated results and reliable, standardized reporting with assistance from WMF. What do you think? Well, there are definite outliers, and the slides aggregate by program type rather than by size. So, for example, several of the IEG grants were much bigger than than the majority of PEG grants. So - not exactly negative correlation (at least, we can't definitively say that). I absolutely agree with your
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
On 1 August 2014 17:01, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: If people are interested in the background to Gerard's rant, the grant he is talking about is [1], and the incomplete report he has been hassled about is [2]. I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss this specific example, but I welcome discussion on that grant report's talk page, and encourage anyone inclined to take Gerard at his word to look into the report in question and draw their own conclusions. Wow. After reading this, I don't think I will go near it. Fae ___ 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] The Wikipedia Library: June/July Books and Bytes Newsletter and Final Report
Hello all, The June/July double-issue of our Books Bytes Newsletter is out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/June2014 You can also catch up on the high level happenings from the past year of grant-work in our schnazzy final report: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_Wikipedia_Library/Renewal/Final Long story short: 2000 editors received 3000 accounts individually worth over a million dollars. We hope all of you attending Wikimania will drop by the talk, The Future of Libraries and Wikipedia https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Future_of_Libraries_and_Wikipedia And you can stay around after the Wikimania talk for our first ever global Wikipedia Library Meetup. https://plus.google.com/events/ct52hv6rnk0g1mu9c3pdoroee98 Hope you're all well and we're looking forward to lots of more great work with Wikipedia and Libraries! Jake, Sadads, The Interior, and the rest of the Wikipeidia Library Team ___ 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] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
Good point, Asaf. Jessie, is there a way to take this into account when compating costs and benefits? I agree with Gerard that there can be survey or reporting fatigue, though I have yet to hear an IEG grantee complain. The APG application and reporting system seems more extensive and I can see how it can discourage small orgs from APG funding, on the other hand there seem to be issues of cost-effectiveness and outcome reporting with some existing large APG grantees. Perhaps there should be easier an APG process for small orgs and more specific cost and outcome reporting requirements for large orgs. Pine On Aug 1, 2014 8:56 AM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Another point to consider is that comparing grants that include staff compensation to grants that do not is necessarily tipping the scales. Volunteer time is a cost too (though borne by the volunteers themselves and not by the funder), and ignoring it in cost-benefit analysis will always give the impression that grants including staff are significantly less effective, whether or not they truly are. It may make sense to ignore it if the funder is only interested in straight impact-for-dollars; it seems to me that WMF is a funder that cares about _movement resources_, including volunteer time, and not just dollars out of its own budget. A. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jessie, Thanks for the quick reply. Issue 1 may be challenging to measure even with Wikimetrics. Can we talk about this during the Research Hackathon next week if we can set up a time off-list? Thanks for the info about issue 2. I am grateful to learn that you did an evaluation of PEG. It is interesting to compare that evaluation with the evaluation of IEG. A number of grantmaking committee members and grantees will be at Wikimania and I hope the PED team will introduce themselves and be available to discuss these studies, especially if there is a plenary meeting of all the Meta grantmaking committee members who attend Wikimania. Thanks very much, Pine On Jul 31, 2014 2:50 PM, Jessie Wild jw...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks for listening to the presentation, Pine! There will be a more comprehensive analysis posted on Meta, but in the meantime to answer your questions: 1. I'm aware that Program Evaluation is examining the outcomes of conferences this year, and Jamie and I have discussed this in at least two places on Meta. I'm curious about if and how you plan to measure the online impact of conferences; not just what people and groups say they will do in post-survey conferences, but what they actually do online in verifiable ways in the subsequent 3-12 months. Jaime and I and the others on the Grantmaking team are working together on this, and experimenting with some different ways of evaluating the work in the few months following the conferences. One way to do this in a small experiment, for example, is to run a cohort of users who received Wikimania Scholarships through Wikimetrics at different increments throughout the year following. This is something I have been curious to do for a long time, but never had the tool to do it on an aggregate level! 2. You said in your presentation that there is no direct correlation between grant size and measurable online impact. From the slides at around the 1:13-1:15 minute marks, it looks to me like the correlation is negative, meaning that smaller grants produced disproportionately more impact. I can say that within IEG this occurred partly because we had some highly motivated and generous grantees who volunteered a considerable amount of time to work with modest amounts of money, and I don't think we should expect that level of generosity from all grantees, but I think that grantmaking committees may want (A) to take into account the level of motivation of grantees, (B) to consider breaking large block grants into discrete smaller projects with individual reporting requirements, and (C) for larger grants where there seem to be a lot of problems with reporting and a disappointing level of cost-effectiveness, to be more assertive about tying funding to demonstrated results and reliable, standardized reporting with assistance from WMF. What do you think? Well, there are definite outliers, and the slides aggregate by program type rather than by size. So, for example, several of the IEG grants were much bigger than than the majority of PEG grants. So - not exactly negative correlation (at least, we can't definitively say that). I absolutely agree with your (C) suggestion, and your (B) suggestion is very interesting too - we haven't discussed that one. It may be worth considering if there are larger project-based grants. For the annual plan grants, we have
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Library: June/July Books and Bytes Newsletter and Final Report
Thanks Jake. TWL was used as a positive example by Jessie Wild in her grant programs evaluation. Pine On Aug 1, 2014 10:54 AM, Jake Orlowitz jorlow...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, The June/July double-issue of our Books Bytes Newsletter is out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/June2014 You can also catch up on the high level happenings from the past year of grant-work in our schnazzy final report: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_Wikipedia_Library/Renewal/Final Long story short: 2000 editors received 3000 accounts individually worth over a million dollars. We hope all of you attending Wikimania will drop by the talk, The Future of Libraries and Wikipedia https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Future_of_Libraries_and_Wikipedia And you can stay around after the Wikimania talk for our first ever global Wikipedia Library Meetup. https://plus.google.com/events/ct52hv6rnk0g1mu9c3pdoroee98 Hope you're all well and we're looking forward to lots of more great work with Wikipedia and Libraries! Jake, Sadads, The Interior, and the rest of the Wikipeidia Library Team ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
He may have donated under a pseudonym, or by cheque, or to a chapter, or through a friend. Very tricky to track down. On 1 Aug 2014 17:42, Dennis Pierri dennis6...@gmail.com wrote: ;O we get vandalized and he doesn't stick to his word of donating? Some people are just mean. On 01/08/2014, at 10:10, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: We do not see any donations from anyone by that name. Best, Lisa Gruwell On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: The activity you describe is obviously unacceptable. However, the amount of time and effort that out associated with tracking down and returning a particular $20 contribution would not be worth it. Newyorkbrad Newyorkbrad, it wouldn't be all that difficult, given that the person's name is known, it was clearly done with Paypal, we have the date the donation was made, etc, etc. Furthermore, as the WMF have publicly spoken on these edits,[1] it would be amiss to condemn the edits but not disavow donations made as part of those edits. The WMF should be refunding the donation. Even more worse, the Kremlin is using the English Wikipedia to support a misinformation campaign around the shoot down of MH17 by Russian separatists in Ukraine.[1] Thankfully we have these new watchdog Twitter bots to spot interference by unsophisticated government actors, of both the playfully harmless and the dangerously harmful varieties. Nathan, it is fantastic that Jen Psaki wishes to engage with the Wikimedia community, but could you please in future ask her to send her brainfarts from her own account. :) Cheers Scotty [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/24/wikipedia-blocks-anonymous-edits-and-trolling-from-a-congressional-ip-address/ ___ 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 ___ 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 Wikipedia Library: June/July Books and Bytes Newsletter and Final Report
Thanks Jake for mentioning our Chinese counterpart of the TWL in the newsletter. But it seems that there're only a few done since then... Workflow unimproved, no work assignments, etc. On 2014年8月2日 上午2:18, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jake. TWL was used as a positive example by Jessie Wild in her grant programs evaluation. Pine On Aug 1, 2014 10:54 AM, Jake Orlowitz jorlow...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, The June/July double-issue of our Books Bytes Newsletter is out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/June2014 You can also catch up on the high level happenings from the past year of grant-work in our schnazzy final report: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_Wikipedia_Library/Renewal/Final Long story short: 2000 editors received 3000 accounts individually worth over a million dollars. We hope all of you attending Wikimania will drop by the talk, The Future of Libraries and Wikipedia https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Future_of_Libraries_and_Wikipedia And you can stay around after the Wikimania talk for our first ever global Wikipedia Library Meetup. https://plus.google.com/events/ct52hv6rnk0g1mu9c3pdoroee98 Hope you're all well and we're looking forward to lots of more great work with Wikipedia and Libraries! Jake, Sadads, The Interior, and the rest of the Wikipeidia Library Team ___ 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
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 34 TB Wikimedia Commons files on archive.org: you can help
WikiTeam[1] has released an update of the chronological archive of all Wikimedia Commons files, up to 2013. Now at ~34 TB total. https://archive.org/details/wikimediacommons I wrote to – I think – all the mirrors in the world, but apparently nobody is interested in such a mass of media apart from the Internet Archive (and the mirrorservice.org which took Kiwix). The solution is simple: take a small bite and preserve a copy yourself. One slice only takes one click, from your browser to your torrent client, and typically 20-40 GB on your disk (biggest slice 1400 GB, smallest 216 MB). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Wikipedia_Archive#Image_tarballs Nemo P.s.: Please help spread the word everywhere. [1] https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: He may have donated under a pseudonym, or by cheque, or to a chapter, or through a friend. Very tricky to track down. Or...the US NSA hacked into the Foundation's donor database and removed it to contribute to the conspiracy. Jeez guys - stop beating the horse. It's never was alive to begin with. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ 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] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
2014-07-31 23:39 GMT+03:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com: WMF Metrics and Activities Meeting Hi, Are the slides available anywhere? I'm especially interested in the heat map. Is there an interactive version online (or at least the data behind it)? Thanks, Strainu ___ 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] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
Slides from all the presentations are available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-08 Dan On 1 August 2014 12:11, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-07-31 23:39 GMT+03:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com: WMF Metrics and Activities Meeting Hi, Are the slides available anywhere? I'm especially interested in the heat map. Is there an interactive version online (or at least the data behind it)? Thanks, Strainu ___ 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 -- Dan Garry Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
The time a staff or contractor will need to discover his donation or if he has donated is more expensive than 20 USD. Ask him better donations, revert the vandalism and don't give the money back, using it for some useful thing, like improving anti-vandalism tools. 2014-08-01 16:10 GMT-03:00 Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: He may have donated under a pseudonym, or by cheque, or to a chapter, or through a friend. Very tricky to track down. Or...the US NSA hacked into the Foundation's donor database and removed it to contribute to the conspiracy. Jeez guys - stop beating the horse. It's never was alive to begin with. -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
+1, sorry, that was my point :-) On 1 Aug 2014 20:10, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: He may have donated under a pseudonym, or by cheque, or to a chapter, or through a friend. Very tricky to track down. Or...the US NSA hacked into the Foundation's donor database and removed it to contribute to the conspiracy. Jeez guys - stop beating the horse. It's never was alive to begin with. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ 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] Egypt Wikimedians User Group
Heartiest congratulaions to the Egypt User Group!! Wishing the Egyptians all the best for the upcoming days. Would like to see you as a chapter in the near future! Regards, Tanweer Morshed Board member, Wikimedia Bangladesh -- Regards - Tanweer Morshed ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
Hi Richard, et al On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: He may have donated under a pseudonym, or by cheque, or to a chapter, or through a friend. Very tricky to track down. True, people can and do donate via such methods. I did so myself when I donated the half proceeds from the sale of Pricasso's painting of Jimmy Wales to the WMF.[1] I had a friend in the US donate by way of cheque sent to the WMF offices so that it wouldn't be eaten up in credit card and Paypal fees. Jeez guys - stop beating the horse. It's never was alive to begin with. Rjd0060, I'm not sure here, but are you saying that the guy didn't actually donate the $20? If so, he publicly said he did, so it's best not to say such things which could be misconstrued as you saying the guy lied. Perhaps contact with him via Twitter might get an answer as to how he actually donated. Cheers Russavia [1] http://archive.today/L6OVn ___ 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 User Group China
Congratulations to China User Group!! Wishing them all the best for the days to come :) Regards, Tanweer Morshed Board member, Wikimedia Bangladesh -- Regards - Tanweer Morshed ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
2014-08-01 16:30 GMT-03:00 Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com: Rjd0060, I'm not sure here, but are you saying that the guy didn't actually donate the $20? If so, he publicly said he did, so it's best not to say such things which could be misconstrued as you saying the guy lied. Perhaps contact with him via Twitter might get an answer as to how he actually donated. No. Richard said it was NSA fault, the US NSA hacked into the Foundation's donor database and removed it. I tend to believe on this as well. Instead of improve anti-vandalism tools as suggested, we also could use the money for improve WMF servers security. -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
Alternately, we could stop feeding an obvious troll. On 1 August 2014 20:30, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Richard, et al On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: He may have donated under a pseudonym, or by cheque, or to a chapter, or through a friend. Very tricky to track down. True, people can and do donate via such methods. I did so myself when I donated the half proceeds from the sale of Pricasso's painting of Jimmy Wales to the WMF.[1] I had a friend in the US donate by way of cheque sent to the WMF offices so that it wouldn't be eaten up in credit card and Paypal fees. Jeez guys - stop beating the horse. It's never was alive to begin with. Rjd0060, I'm not sure here, but are you saying that the guy didn't actually donate the $20? If so, he publicly said he did, so it's best not to say such things which could be misconstrued as you saying the guy lied. Perhaps contact with him via Twitter might get an answer as to how he actually donated. Cheers Russavia [1] http://archive.today/L6OVn ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Jeez guys - stop beating the horse. It's never was alive to begin with. Rjd0060, I'm not sure here, but are you saying that the guy didn't actually donate the $20? If so, he publicly said he did, so it's best not to say such things which could be misconstrued as you saying the guy lied. Perhaps contact with him via Twitter might get an answer as to how he actually donated. Cheers Russavia No, I'm saying this doesn't matter and people should get back to doing whatever they feel is actually important. Let it go. It really does not matter. AT ALL. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ 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] Egypt Wikimedians User Group
Thanks to the Egyptian Wikipedians for their swift responses to Signpost inquiries, this week's Signpost Education Report will include a focused discussion about Egypt, in addition to the planned report about the Education Program in the broader Arab world. For those who haven't been following the series [1], we have covered the United States and Canada, Serbia, and Israel in previous weeks. This week we are in Egypt and the Arab World. Next week we will visit Mexico, which is the country that will host the 2015 Wikimania. Our final article will include a broad view of the program with WMF including discussions about the program's future. Early access to the WMF article will be made available on the Education mailing list for the benefit of London Wikimania participants in the Education Program. Pine [1] First report was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-09/Wikimedia_in_education and others are linked from there. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Tanweer Morshed wiki.tanw...@gmail.com wrote: Heartiest congratulaions to the Egypt User Group!! Wishing the Egyptians all the best for the upcoming days. Would like to see you as a chapter in the near future! Regards, Tanweer Morshed Board member, Wikimedia Bangladesh -- Regards - Tanweer Morshed ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote: No, I'm saying this doesn't matter and people should get back to doing whatever they feel is actually important. Let it go. It really does not matter. AT ALL. I can't agree. It's clear that lives are at stake, not to mention our international reputation and the livelihood of all employees as well as the self-esteem of many thousands of contributors. This couldn't possibly be more serious. ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
To me, the only thing at stake is the seriousness of this list - and that is not a new issue, unfortunately. Regards, Thyge /Sir48 2014-08-01 21:59 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote: No, I'm saying this doesn't matter and people should get back to doing whatever they feel is actually important. Let it go. It really does not matter. AT ALL. I can't agree. It's clear that lives are at stake, not to mention our international reputation and the livelihood of all employees as well as the self-esteem of many thousands of contributors. This couldn't possibly be more serious. ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
Hi all, On 27 April 2013, one of our then-Commons checkusers ran a check on my account on that project. I only found out this information in May of this year, after twelve months of asking the simple question -- was a checkuser run on my account? For twelve months this question went unanswered by checkusers on Commons. I always made it clear when I asked that I only wanted the opportunity to discuss the issue privately with the CU concerned. On 14 May 2014, I had a discussion with a steward on the issue of editors finding out whether CUs have been run on oneself and what information, if any, should be given. It was their opinion that if they were asked they would confirm: 1) whether a CU was done, 2) who ran the checkuser, 3) the date it was run, and 4) depending on circumstances, the reason for the CU (in some instances divulging the reason may breach the privacy of another editor, and it is fair enough) I relayed this information to a Commons checkuser on the same day, and mentioned that for 12 months neither 1, 2, 3 or 4 was ever divulged to me. They confirmed for me that a checkuser was indeed done on me on Commons in April 2013 and the reason for it being done was (along the lines of) contact me for more info. They said they would check with other CU's whether they should divulge who ran the CU, and I re-iterated what I was told by a steward, but agreed to wait for an answer. The following day (15 May 2014) I asked another CU privately on IRC about the outstanding issue, and I was told that it was decided that they would not tell me who ran the CU, because: (w)e see no advantages in telling you, only disadvantages. On 16 May 2014 I sent in a written complaint to the CU Ombusdman. In my complaint I outlined what it was that required: With that said, I kindly request that the Commission investigate: * (1) on what grounds a CheckUser action was performed on my account on Wikimedia Commons, * (2) who requested that it be performed on Commons, and * (3) who fulfilled the request. Given the apparently very serious breach of the CheckUser policy, I ask that the user who performed that action be immediately removed from their position as a Wikimedia Commons CheckUser. On 27 May 2014 I received an email back from the OC which basically said that because no personal information was divulged, there was no breach of the WMF Privacy Policy. It also said that they would inform the WMF about the case, and if I had any further information on who released such information then I should contact them. On 28 May 2014 I wrote back to the OC and informed that I was not complaining about the fact I was given any of my CU information, but rather I was complaining about the very fact that a CU was done. I again asked them to investigate the case. On 6 June 2014 I heard back from the OC and they stated that my complaint was being forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation and that they had been informed about the possible running of an unnecessary CU, in addition to the possible release of CU logs. Additionally, I was told that the OC would relay to me once they had it from the Board. It should at this time be noted, that on 16 May 2014, I was forwarded by a friendly steward the entire log of the #wikimedia-stewards-internal channel on IRC. As part of this log, one steward told the channel that I was complaining about a CU leak (I wasn't) and that they had lodged a complaint with the OC. Aside from accidentally the pertinent part of the log into the stewards private chat window, I also informed them that there was no leak. I should mention the fact that the stewards private channel logs had been leaked to me also created a shitstorm in that channel (for which I was also provided logs). However, in private discussions with someone in the know, I was informed about two pieces of information pertaining as to why the OC was not able to investigate and had instead forwarded it to the WMF Board to investigate. 1) There was indeed a leak of my CU data. An unknown Commons CU had indeed leaked my CU data to another person who was NOT a CU on Commons. The information given to this non-CU person included the very name of the person who ran the CU on me; information which was so sensitive to keep from me, but not sensitive enough that it was able to be shared with every Tom, Dick and Harry that wasn't me. 2) The CU who ran the check is no longer participating on WMF projects and hence the OC was not able to get answers from them. Only 5 Commons checkusers used the tool in April 2013,[1] and only one of these is no longer on our projects. One CU did indeed leave all projects not long after I started asking questions in May/June 2013. On 15 June 2014, I contacted Legal and the WMF Board and asked for information on where the investigation was at, and noted that given the timeframe that this has been an ongoing issue I would appreciate a speedy resolution. On 2 July 2014 I was contacted by someone within Legal informing me that
[Wikimedia-l] Insights of the Chapters Dialogue are online!
Dear Wikimedia friends, I am happy to announce that we have finally released the documentation of the Chapters Dialogue project. You might probably remember: The Chapters Dialogue was the project that was initiated by Wikimedia Deutschland in spring 2013, my former colleague Kira Krämer interviewed representatives from Wikimedia Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as Funds Dissemination and Affiliations Committee. Kira and I presented the insights at several occasions already, and now the written report is at your disposal. Please find all the information on the Meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue For those of you who are already on their way into the weekend, to London, or reading via mobile, I’m copying the Executive Summary of the findings at the end of this email. Luckily, Wikimania is coming and I will be available to answer your questions and reflect on ideas or concerns with anyone interested. I’ll be in London from Tuesday till Monday, and will host a session on the Chapters Dialogue insights on Saturday from 12:15 to 13:00 in room Auditorium 1[1]. Attendees of this session will witness the premier of the Chapters Dialogue movie, which will be released to the public shortly after. If you cannot attend the session and don’t find me hanging around at the Wikimedia Deutschland booth in the Community Village, you can reach me via my user page[2] or via email. I would like to take this opportunity to again express my sincere gratitude to everyone who participated, be it as one of the 94 interviewees or one of our mentors, critical friend or supporter in any other way. It’s been a blast! A very special and very warm thank you goes out to Kira. Together, we rocked this last year and went through most exciting times. Kira is no longer working for WMDE, but I promised to forward her every comment and email that we receive from you. Best regards, Nicole [1] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_State_of_Wikimedia_-_A_movement_Dialogue [2] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nicole_Ebber_%28WMDE%29 Wikimedia Deutschland – Chapters Dialogue Nicole Ebber (Project Lead), Kira Krämer (Project Manager) Executive Summary Wikimedia is a global movement: the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Chapters and the international communities work and fight for Free Knowledge. In spring 2013, Wikimedia Deutschland initiated a structured assessment of the movement organisations’ needs, goals and stories: the Chapters Dialogue. Nicole Ebber led the project and hired Kira Krämer, who adapted the Design Thinking methodology to the process. In the course of the project (August 2013-February 2014), 94 movement representatives (volunteers and staff) from Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the Funds Dissemination Committee and the Affiliations Committee were interviewed. The interviewees spoke about their understanding of roles and relationships within the movement, of responsibilities that come with being a Chapter or being the WMF. They described their goals and stories, what support they need and who they think is in a position to offer this support. The synthesis of all the interviews resulted in an overall picture of the movement and a distillate of the most pressing issues. The findings and insights cover these main areas, which have had a great influence on the movement as it is today. Lack of empathy and the persistence of old narratives: All the conflicts described in this report are based on causes that are deep rooted and manifested in people’s perceptions about each other that still persist today. Each party in the movement has its own needs and tries to solve issues in its own interests, while lacking empathy for other views, opinions, contexts and behaviour. Measuring success when exploring new territory: The movement lacks a definition of what impact actually means to it, as all Wikimedia activities can be described as exploring entirely new territory. Chapters struggle with proving that they and their activities are worth invested in while WMF has difficulty providing a clear movement strategy. Organisational structures: Organisational structures have grown organically without any official recommendation for or analysis of the best organisational form to achieve impact. The lack of a shared understanding about the Chapters’ role and contribution to the movement causes severe insecurities and is fuelling conflicts and misperceptions. Money-driven decisions: Creating a consensus about money, its collection and responsible dissemination (donors’ trust!) is scarcely possible. The Haifa trauma persistently blights the relationship between WMF and the Chapters, fuelled by additional disagreement about the new fundraising and grantmaking processes. The gap in leadership: Who should take the leadership role and what should leadership in the Wikimedia movement look like? Adopting the narrowed focus, the WMF clearly states that it
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia User Group China
Congratulations! Sydney On Jul 30, 2014 12:18 PM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote: Dear all, It is an honor to announce that the Affiliations Committee has resolved [1] recognizing the Wikimedia User Group China as a Wikimedia User Group; their main focus areas are getting more chinese people know and use Wikipedia, encouraging people to become contributors to the different Wikimedia projects, and maintain the community healthy and growing. Let's welcome the newest member of the family of affiliates -and the fourth from the Sinosphere! Regards, Carlos 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Resolutions/Wikimedia_User_Group_China_-_July_2014 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos M. Colina Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote: No, I'm saying this doesn't matter and people should get back to doing whatever they feel is actually important. Let it go. It really does not matter. AT ALL. I can't agree. It's clear that lives are at stake, not to mention our international reputation and the livelihood of all employees as well as the self-esteem of many thousands of contributors. This couldn't possibly be more serious. When you find yourself saying things like this, or you find yourself agreeing to this kind of reasoning, perhaps it's time to take a step back and look at the big picture. We're editing a *website*. Go outside and play. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ 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] Insights of the Chapters Dialogue are online!
Thank you Nicole. Great work! The document will be my on-flight reading in my way to London. 2014-08-01 15:28 GMT-05:00 Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de: Dear Wikimedia friends, I am happy to announce that we have finally released the documentation of the Chapters Dialogue project. You might probably remember: The Chapters Dialogue was the project that was initiated by Wikimedia Deutschland in spring 2013, my former colleague Kira Krämer interviewed representatives from Wikimedia Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as Funds Dissemination and Affiliations Committee. Kira and I presented the insights at several occasions already, and now the written report is at your disposal. Please find all the information on the Meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue For those of you who are already on their way into the weekend, to London, or reading via mobile, I’m copying the Executive Summary of the findings at the end of this email. Luckily, Wikimania is coming and I will be available to answer your questions and reflect on ideas or concerns with anyone interested. I’ll be in London from Tuesday till Monday, and will host a session on the Chapters Dialogue insights on Saturday from 12:15 to 13:00 in room Auditorium 1[1]. Attendees of this session will witness the premier of the Chapters Dialogue movie, which will be released to the public shortly after. If you cannot attend the session and don’t find me hanging around at the Wikimedia Deutschland booth in the Community Village, you can reach me via my user page[2] or via email. I would like to take this opportunity to again express my sincere gratitude to everyone who participated, be it as one of the 94 interviewees or one of our mentors, critical friend or supporter in any other way. It’s been a blast! A very special and very warm thank you goes out to Kira. Together, we rocked this last year and went through most exciting times. Kira is no longer working for WMDE, but I promised to forward her every comment and email that we receive from you. Best regards, Nicole [1] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_State_of_Wikimedia_-_A_movement_Dialogue [2] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nicole_Ebber_%28WMDE%29 Wikimedia Deutschland – Chapters Dialogue Nicole Ebber (Project Lead), Kira Krämer (Project Manager) Executive Summary Wikimedia is a global movement: the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Chapters and the international communities work and fight for Free Knowledge. In spring 2013, Wikimedia Deutschland initiated a structured assessment of the movement organisations’ needs, goals and stories: the Chapters Dialogue. Nicole Ebber led the project and hired Kira Krämer, who adapted the Design Thinking methodology to the process. In the course of the project (August 2013-February 2014), 94 movement representatives (volunteers and staff) from Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the Funds Dissemination Committee and the Affiliations Committee were interviewed. The interviewees spoke about their understanding of roles and relationships within the movement, of responsibilities that come with being a Chapter or being the WMF. They described their goals and stories, what support they need and who they think is in a position to offer this support. The synthesis of all the interviews resulted in an overall picture of the movement and a distillate of the most pressing issues. The findings and insights cover these main areas, which have had a great influence on the movement as it is today. Lack of empathy and the persistence of old narratives: All the conflicts described in this report are based on causes that are deep rooted and manifested in people’s perceptions about each other that still persist today. Each party in the movement has its own needs and tries to solve issues in its own interests, while lacking empathy for other views, opinions, contexts and behaviour. Measuring success when exploring new territory: The movement lacks a definition of what impact actually means to it, as all Wikimedia activities can be described as exploring entirely new territory. Chapters struggle with proving that they and their activities are worth invested in while WMF has difficulty providing a clear movement strategy. Organisational structures: Organisational structures have grown organically without any official recommendation for or analysis of the best organisational form to achieve impact. The lack of a shared understanding about the Chapters’ role and contribution to the movement causes severe insecurities and is fuelling conflicts and misperceptions. Money-driven decisions: Creating a consensus about money, its collection and responsible dissemination (donors’ trust!) is scarcely possible. The Haifa trauma persistently blights the relationship between WMF and the Chapters, fuelled by additional
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Commission, nor the WMF Board. Given this, I am asking very publicly the following questions: * (1) on what grounds a CheckUser action was performed on my account on Wikimedia Commons? * (2) who requested that it be performed on Commons? * (3) who fulfilled the request? * (4) why is it acceptable for CUs to share actions related to my account with non-CUs whilst at the same time actively keeping this information from me? * (5) why are complaints such as this actively ignored by the WMF Board? Thanks for your attention and reply. Russavia Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy, the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page on Commons. Can you also outline for your audience what harm you believe you have suffered? Here's why I ask the second question: Following your breadcrumbs led me to only one CU, but I was puzzled to discover this comment from you on this users talk page let me say thank you from myself and the rest of the community for all the great work you've done on this project over the years. Puzzled because it was left several weeks after you say you filed a formal complaint. ___ 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote: No, I'm saying this doesn't matter and people should get back to doing whatever they feel is actually important. Let it go. It really does not matter. AT ALL. I can't agree. It's clear that lives are at stake, not to mention our international reputation and the livelihood of all employees as well as the self-esteem of many thousands of contributors. This couldn't possibly be more serious. When you find yourself saying things like this, or you find yourself agreeing to this kind of reasoning, perhaps it's time to take a step back and look at the big picture. We're editing a *website*. Go outside and play. I guess you can see now how its possible Russavia didn't get your joke :-P ___ 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] Insights of the Chapters Dialogue are online!
Thanks for sharing, Nicole! I really appreciate the work you and Kira did here. Looking forward to reviewing this body of work, and hope to further the dialogue at Wikimania! Katy On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote: Dear Wikimedia friends, I am happy to announce that we have finally released the documentation of the Chapters Dialogue project. You might probably remember: The Chapters Dialogue was the project that was initiated by Wikimedia Deutschland in spring 2013, my former colleague Kira Krämer interviewed representatives from Wikimedia Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as Funds Dissemination and Affiliations Committee. Kira and I presented the insights at several occasions already, and now the written report is at your disposal. Please find all the information on the Meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue For those of you who are already on their way into the weekend, to London, or reading via mobile, I’m copying the Executive Summary of the findings at the end of this email. Luckily, Wikimania is coming and I will be available to answer your questions and reflect on ideas or concerns with anyone interested. I’ll be in London from Tuesday till Monday, and will host a session on the Chapters Dialogue insights on Saturday from 12:15 to 13:00 in room Auditorium 1[1]. Attendees of this session will witness the premier of the Chapters Dialogue movie, which will be released to the public shortly after. If you cannot attend the session and don’t find me hanging around at the Wikimedia Deutschland booth in the Community Village, you can reach me via my user page[2] or via email. I would like to take this opportunity to again express my sincere gratitude to everyone who participated, be it as one of the 94 interviewees or one of our mentors, critical friend or supporter in any other way. It’s been a blast! A very special and very warm thank you goes out to Kira. Together, we rocked this last year and went through most exciting times. Kira is no longer working for WMDE, but I promised to forward her every comment and email that we receive from you. Best regards, Nicole [1] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_State_of_Wikimedia_-_A_movement_Dialogue [2] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nicole_Ebber_%28WMDE%29 Wikimedia Deutschland – Chapters Dialogue Nicole Ebber (Project Lead), Kira Krämer (Project Manager) Executive Summary Wikimedia is a global movement: the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Chapters and the international communities work and fight for Free Knowledge. In spring 2013, Wikimedia Deutschland initiated a structured assessment of the movement organisations’ needs, goals and stories: the Chapters Dialogue. Nicole Ebber led the project and hired Kira Krämer, who adapted the Design Thinking methodology to the process. In the course of the project (August 2013-February 2014), 94 movement representatives (volunteers and staff) from Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the Funds Dissemination Committee and the Affiliations Committee were interviewed. The interviewees spoke about their understanding of roles and relationships within the movement, of responsibilities that come with being a Chapter or being the WMF. They described their goals and stories, what support they need and who they think is in a position to offer this support. The synthesis of all the interviews resulted in an overall picture of the movement and a distillate of the most pressing issues. The findings and insights cover these main areas, which have had a great influence on the movement as it is today. Lack of empathy and the persistence of old narratives: All the conflicts described in this report are based on causes that are deep rooted and manifested in people’s perceptions about each other that still persist today. Each party in the movement has its own needs and tries to solve issues in its own interests, while lacking empathy for other views, opinions, contexts and behaviour. Measuring success when exploring new territory: The movement lacks a definition of what impact actually means to it, as all Wikimedia activities can be described as exploring entirely new territory. Chapters struggle with proving that they and their activities are worth invested in while WMF has difficulty providing a clear movement strategy. Organisational structures: Organisational structures have grown organically without any official recommendation for or analysis of the best organisational form to achieve impact. The lack of a shared understanding about the Chapters’ role and contribution to the movement causes severe insecurities and is fuelling conflicts and misperceptions. Money-driven decisions: Creating a consensus about money, its collection and responsible dissemination (donors’ trust!) is scarcely possible. The Haifa trauma
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote: Slides from all the presentations are available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-08 The grantmaking slides seem to be limited to WMF employees though. ___ 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] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
Jessie, Can you make sure that your slides from yesterday are shared publicly so people can take a look at them? Right now they seem to be shared only to WMF employees. Thanks! Dan On 1 August 2014 14:45, Gergo Tisza gti...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote: Slides from all the presentations are available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-08 The grantmaking slides seem to be limited to WMF employees though. ___ 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 -- Dan Garry Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] Introducing the new Wikimedia blog: a place for movement news
Hi Tilman et al On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, Please find below the text of an announcement that was just posted at https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/07/31/introducing-the-new-blog/ ;) I notice at the bottom that the privacy policy link goes to http://automattic.com/privacy/ rather than the WMF's privacy policy. Is this an oversight or deliberate? Curiously yours, Russavia ___ 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] Egypt Wikimedians User Group
!!مبروك يا مصريون On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to the Egyptian Wikipedians for their swift responses to Signpost inquiries, this week's Signpost Education Report will include a focused discussion about Egypt, in addition to the planned report about the Education Program in the broader Arab world. For those who haven't been following the series [1], we have covered the United States and Canada, Serbia, and Israel in previous weeks. This week we are in Egypt and the Arab World. Next week we will visit Mexico, which is the country that will host the 2015 Wikimania. Our final article will include a broad view of the program with WMF including discussions about the program's future. Early access to the WMF article will be made available on the Education mailing list for the benefit of London Wikimania participants in the Education Program. Pine [1] First report was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-09/Wikimedia_in_education and others are linked from there. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Tanweer Morshed wiki.tanw...@gmail.com wrote: Heartiest congratulaions to the Egypt User Group!! Wishing the Egyptians all the best for the upcoming days. Would like to see you as a chapter in the near future! Regards, Tanweer Morshed Board member, Wikimedia Bangladesh -- Regards - Tanweer Morshed ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy, the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page on Commons. Can you also outline for your audience what harm you believe you have suffered? Regarding policy, Russavia is claiming that the CU results were given to someone who wasnt a CU on Commons. In my experience sometimes that happens in cross-wiki investigations, but it should not be given to someone who isnt a CU anywhere, and it would be a very clear violation of CU policy for it to have been given to someone who wasnt WMF identified. It would be good if Russavia could clarify, and/or the OC could confirm, that the person who received the CU data was WMF identified at least. I am guessing that Russavia has yet to hear how the CU on his account complies with the CU policy. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Was there a serious concern that Russavia was using alternative accounts in a prohibited manner? Was he vandalising? Hmm. CU's performing unwarranted CU investigations on users harms the entire project. This is especially true of regular contributors, as their CU data often provides a lot of information about their daily lives, and may 'reveal' real life connections with other contributors, sometimes very explicitly and other times it is vaguely and unwarranted suspicions are formed and rumours spread. Here's why I ask the second question: Following your breadcrumbs led me to only one CU, but I was puzzled to discover this comment from you on this users talk page let me say thank you from myself and the rest of the community for all the great work you've done on this project over the years. Puzzled because it was left several weeks after you say you filed a formal complaint. Russavia said something nice to someone in 2013 on their retirement, and raised a formal complaint about an unknown CU's action in 2014. How are these related?? That a well respected CU has retired isnt a good reason for the OC to not investigate a complaint, especially if that CU data was passed around. It may make the investigation less fruitful, and it is a good reason for the outcome to be measured against the good done by the volunteer when they were active. Mistakes happen. Usually apologies follow, and that is the end of it, or maybe some lessons learnt bring about improvements to the system. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 29 -- 30 July 2014
News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/News_and_notes Book review: Knowledge or unreality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Book_review Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Wikimedia_in_education Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Featured_content Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Traffic_report Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Recent_research Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30 https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ 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
