Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Lodewijk]

just for the record: the IBAN we have been talking about al this time is
the bank account number of a WMF bank account in euro, at a bank located in
Paris (and previously in Brussels). Of course the WMF has a euro bank
account, it would be odd if they didn't.

Lodewijk

ps: no need to shout.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for the clarification. It's surprising to me that posting a bank
> >> account number could lead to fraud - the bank systems are supposed to be
> >> robust enough for that.
>
> > My understanding is this is mostly a problem in the US, from what I
> > heard from Garfield. I asked him because Wikimedia CH broadcast its IBAN
> > number everywhere for the fundraising, so I would have liked to know of
> > any potential problem, but there does not seem to be any in Europe.
>
> > [...]
>
> Nothing prevents WMF from opening a bank account in Europe;
> in fact given that most of the requests in this thread orig-
> inate from within the SEPA region, having a bank account
> outside it would be very inconvient for many donors.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mark]

On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:

There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.


If an ISP wanted to make *all* online free-knowledge resources exempt 
from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting 
proposal. It's the differential pricing between different sources of 
knowledge that I find more troubling: why should a user pay more to 
access the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's 
already attempting to shape, via differential pricing, where online 
users get their information.


-Mark


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Tim Landscheidt]

Mike Godwin  wrote:

> [...]

> Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
> organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
> logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
> And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
> network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
> other zero-rated services may pose.

I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.

This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
views, not more people consume one view.

And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

Tim


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Tim Landscheidt]

Michael Snow  wrote:

> [...]

> Also, I'm no expert on EU regulations, but I do observe that
> according to the European Payments Council, it seems payees
> receiving SEPA credit transfers are advised to communicate
> the IBAN "only where necessary":
> http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/index.cfm/sepa-credit-transfer/iban-and-bic/
> (and likewise for payers making direct debit payments).

That text and Regulation 260/2012 it refers to use "only
where necessary" to refer to the publication of the *BIC* as
it is only necessary for routing in the transition period
that ends February 1st, 2016 at the latest.

> (and likewise for payers making direct debit payments). It
> may simply be that the fundraising team has been advised
> that this is more consistent with providing the IBAN upon
> request, rather than posting it on the website. Not to
> disparage what may be common practice at other
> organizations, but that does seem like a natural conclusion
> to draw from that guidance.

It could also be that the guidance was bad (or misunder-
stood) and it is advisable to change banks before money is
"lost".

Tim


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Tim Landscheidt]

Frédéric Schütz  wrote:

>> Thanks for the clarification. It's surprising to me that posting a bank
>> account number could lead to fraud - the bank systems are supposed to be
>> robust enough for that.

> My understanding is this is mostly a problem in the US, from what I
> heard from Garfield. I asked him because Wikimedia CH broadcast its IBAN
> number everywhere for the fundraising, so I would have liked to know of
> any potential problem, but there does not seem to be any in Europe.

> [...]

Nothing prevents WMF from opening a bank account in Europe;
in fact given that most of the requests in this thread orig-
inate from within the SEPA region, having a bank account
outside it would be very inconvient for many donors.

Tim


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Milos Rancic]

I don't see economics here, unless you are extremely naive about reality.

There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.

The fact that the net neutrality concept has been written from the
perspective of the dominant ideology, which adherents are not capable to
comprehend that there is something outside of the market, proves just the
point that those responsible for the definition should educate themselves a
bit and try again.
On Nov 30, 2014 12:05 PM, "Mark"  wrote:

> On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
>
>> Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
>> concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
>> mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being
>> slowed.
>> There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
>>
>
> I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about
> economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 1.
> have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored uses; or
> 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain favored uses. Most
> things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa;
> it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either
> case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether
> the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this
> case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes
> to prohibit.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Risker]

Ummm.  We have all kinds of ways for people to donate, and the process for
transferring is pretty clear.  Having been in a situation where I had to
make bank transfers, I felt honestly like I was handing over the keys to
the kingdom just for the right to pay someone money: far more personal
information was required than is needed for any other means of payment that
I've ever used.  Banks in Canada regularly call their customers for
transactions under $5 because fraud is so common - and that is with chip
cards and PINs.

Risker



On 1 December 2014 at 00:08, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> IMHO we need to advertise how people can transfer money to us. It requires
> an account number. Now if the USA is not able to accommodate this, FINE,
> let us do it in Europe at least..
>
> WHAT AM I MISSING HERE ?
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 03:38, Michael Snow  wrote:
>
> > On 11/30/2014 1:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> An IBAN number is NOT a credit card ... You need a ping number in
> >> combination with some smart card functionality in order to make it
> work..
> >> The combination generates a number that is always different..
> >>
> > You seem to have misunderstood the scenario I laid out. I'm not talking
> > about people using the IBAN to steal money out of a Wikimedia account, I
> > depend on the bank to have security robust enough to prevent that. The
> > scenario I'm discussing involves people using the IBAN to fraudulently
> pay
> > money to Wikimedia from someone else's account, such as a credit card.
> That
> > account does not necessarily have an IBAN or chip-and-pin security, and
> at
> > any rate whatever security it has was already breached. The payment would
> > just be a method for the fraudsters to verify the success of the breach.
> > The result would be added costs to Wikimedia and to the financial
> > institutions involved, in order to identify and reverse the fraudulent
> > transactions.
> >
> > To respond to some of the other questions raised about my scenario:
> >
> > This was a risk scenario I presented to answer the question, "How can
> > posting a bank account number lead to fraud?" It may or may not have
> been a
> > factor in the decision to not publicly post the IBAN, I don't know.
> >
> > I'm also not suggesting that this scenario is unique to IBAN, it could
> > affect any type of account number that accepts payments (for example,
> > accounts you might have for various utility services, such as water,
> > electricity, telephone, or internet). It's also possible thru PayPal, of
> > course, and that's the reason for having a $1 minimum donation
> requirement,
> > among other protections. I don't know if there are difficulties with
> > establishing comparable security around the IBAN, or if it's more a
> matter
> > of a cost-benefit analysis indicating that it's worth the resources to
> deal
> > with this for donations via Wikimedia's online payment form, but not for
> > donations directly to Wikimedia's bank account.
> >
> > Also, I'm no expert on EU regulations, but I do observe that according to
> > the European Payments Council, it seems payees receiving SEPA credit
> > transfers are advised to communicate the IBAN "only where necessary":
> > http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/index.cfm/sepa-credit-
> > transfer/iban-and-bic/ (and likewise for payers making direct debit
> > payments). It may simply be that the fundraising team has been advised
> that
> > this is more consistent with providing the IBAN upon request, rather than
> > posting it on the website. Not to disparage what may be common practice
> at
> > other organizations, but that does seem like a natural conclusion to draw
> > from that guidance.
> >
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
IMHO we need to advertise how people can transfer money to us. It requires
an account number. Now if the USA is not able to accommodate this, FINE,
let us do it in Europe at least..

WHAT AM I MISSING HERE ?
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 1 December 2014 at 03:38, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 11/30/2014 1:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> An IBAN number is NOT a credit card ... You need a ping number in
>> combination with some smart card functionality in order to make it work..
>> The combination generates a number that is always different..
>>
> You seem to have misunderstood the scenario I laid out. I'm not talking
> about people using the IBAN to steal money out of a Wikimedia account, I
> depend on the bank to have security robust enough to prevent that. The
> scenario I'm discussing involves people using the IBAN to fraudulently pay
> money to Wikimedia from someone else's account, such as a credit card. That
> account does not necessarily have an IBAN or chip-and-pin security, and at
> any rate whatever security it has was already breached. The payment would
> just be a method for the fraudsters to verify the success of the breach.
> The result would be added costs to Wikimedia and to the financial
> institutions involved, in order to identify and reverse the fraudulent
> transactions.
>
> To respond to some of the other questions raised about my scenario:
>
> This was a risk scenario I presented to answer the question, "How can
> posting a bank account number lead to fraud?" It may or may not have been a
> factor in the decision to not publicly post the IBAN, I don't know.
>
> I'm also not suggesting that this scenario is unique to IBAN, it could
> affect any type of account number that accepts payments (for example,
> accounts you might have for various utility services, such as water,
> electricity, telephone, or internet). It's also possible thru PayPal, of
> course, and that's the reason for having a $1 minimum donation requirement,
> among other protections. I don't know if there are difficulties with
> establishing comparable security around the IBAN, or if it's more a matter
> of a cost-benefit analysis indicating that it's worth the resources to deal
> with this for donations via Wikimedia's online payment form, but not for
> donations directly to Wikimedia's bank account.
>
> Also, I'm no expert on EU regulations, but I do observe that according to
> the European Payments Council, it seems payees receiving SEPA credit
> transfers are advised to communicate the IBAN "only where necessary":
> http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/index.cfm/sepa-credit-
> transfer/iban-and-bic/ (and likewise for payers making direct debit
> payments). It may simply be that the fundraising team has been advised that
> this is more consistent with providing the IBAN upon request, rather than
> posting it on the website. Not to disparage what may be common practice at
> other organizations, but that does seem like a natural conclusion to draw
> from that guidance.
>
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[svetlana]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, at 15:21, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
> > "Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
> > a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
> > (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
> > 
> > Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
> > favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
> > not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
> > 
> > Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
> > differently than data from another source" is a violation of net
> > neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
> > definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
> > treatment is never accepted.
> 
> But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
> arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
> built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are
> saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
> cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.
> 
> The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its
> social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be
> cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate?
> What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that
> they are the same price?
> 
> Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably
> harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split
> those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost
> perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers
> will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.
> 
> Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
> don't use a big CDN.

Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users" things?

> If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you
> would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites
> that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their
> users.
> 
> -- Tim Starling
> 
> 
> ___
> 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, 
> 


--
svetlana

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Tim Starling]

On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
> "Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
> a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
> (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
> 
> Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
> favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
> not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
> 
> Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
> differently than data from another source" is a violation of net
> neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
> definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
> treatment is never accepted.

But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are
saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.

The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its
social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be
cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate?
What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that
they are the same price?

Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably
harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split
those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost
perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers
will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.

Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
don't use a big CDN. If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you
would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites
that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their
users.

-- Tim Starling


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Michael Snow]

On 11/30/2014 11:12 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Anyway, please inform the European Central Bank of your findings, I'm 
sure they'll be interested in hearing them. Currently their website 
seems unaware of such fraud possibilities and contains statements such 
as «Sensitive data payment: Data which could be used to carry out 
fraud, excluding the name of the account owner and the account number».
 

I'm not sure why you would conclude they are unaware of a possible form 
for fraud just because they don't specifically identify it on their 
website. At any rate, I suspect you may be misunderstanding the 
definition of "sensitive payment data" (the actual term from the linked 
document, which was somehow transposed above).


To my reading, that looks like an attempt to create a precise technical 
definition for the purposes of the report, so that whenever the term was 
used it would always mean the same thing. I don't think it's claiming 
that the name of the account owner and the account number are not in the 
larger class of "data which could be used to carry out fraud". Rather, 
because these are nearly essential to transactions being possible at 
all, I believe the language is attempting to exclude them from the 
restrictions that the report recommends for all other data which meets 
the definition of "sensitive payment data".


--Michael Snow

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Michael Snow]

On 11/30/2014 1:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
An IBAN number is NOT a credit card ... You need a ping number in
combination with some smart card functionality in order to make it work..
The combination generates a number that is always different..
You seem to have misunderstood the scenario I laid out. I'm not talking 
about people using the IBAN to steal money out of a Wikimedia account, I 
depend on the bank to have security robust enough to prevent that. The 
scenario I'm discussing involves people using the IBAN to fraudulently 
pay money to Wikimedia from someone else's account, such as a credit 
card. That account does not necessarily have an IBAN or chip-and-pin 
security, and at any rate whatever security it has was already breached. 
The payment would just be a method for the fraudsters to verify the 
success of the breach. The result would be added costs to Wikimedia and 
to the financial institutions involved, in order to identify and reverse 
the fraudulent transactions.


To respond to some of the other questions raised about my scenario:

This was a risk scenario I presented to answer the question, "How can 
posting a bank account number lead to fraud?" It may or may not have 
been a factor in the decision to not publicly post the IBAN, I don't know.


I'm also not suggesting that this scenario is unique to IBAN, it could 
affect any type of account number that accepts payments (for example, 
accounts you might have for various utility services, such as water, 
electricity, telephone, or internet). It's also possible thru PayPal, of 
course, and that's the reason for having a $1 minimum donation 
requirement, among other protections. I don't know if there are 
difficulties with establishing comparable security around the IBAN, or 
if it's more a matter of a cost-benefit analysis indicating that it's 
worth the resources to deal with this for donations via Wikimedia's 
online payment form, but not for donations directly to Wikimedia's bank 
account.


Also, I'm no expert on EU regulations, but I do observe that according 
to the European Payments Council, it seems payees receiving SEPA credit 
transfers are advised to communicate the IBAN "only where necessary": 
http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/index.cfm/sepa-credit-transfer/iban-and-bic/ 
(and likewise for payers making direct debit payments). It may simply be 
that the fundraising team has been advised that this is more consistent 
with providing the IBAN upon request, rather than posting it on the 
website. Not to disparage what may be common practice at other 
organizations, but that does seem like a natural conclusion to draw from 
that guidance.


--Michael Snow

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of Delphine Ménard, Lodewijk Gelauff and Bence Damokos as AffCom Advisers

[Isabella Apriyana]

Congratulations!
On Dec 1, 2014 1:39 AM, "Keilana"  wrote:

> Thank you so much for being willing to offer your considerable expertise!
>
> -Emily
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations! I know each of them personally, and I have no doubt they
> > will bring huge expertise to the committee!
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> >
> >
> > *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> > Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> > +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
> ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Recently the Affiliations Commitee, in order to improve its governance
> > and
> > > in its need for improvement and organizational advise, voted in favor
> of
> > > appointing Delphine Ménard [1], Lodewijk Gelauff [2] and Bence Damokos
> > [3]
> > > as non-voting advisers . They have provided this committee during their
> > > respective tenures as full members of this committee with invaluable
> > > expertise, governance advise and language and communication skills.
> > Hence,
> > > this committee has decided to appoint them as advisers for a term
> ending
> > on
> > > Deceber 31, 2016.
> > >
> > > Many thanks in advance to Delphine, Lodewijk and Bence for their
> > > contributions and support to the Affiliations Committee. And of course,
> > > congratulations!
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > > Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_
> > > adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
> > > 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > > Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_
> > > adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
> > > 3: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > > Resolutions/Appointment_of_Bence_Damokos_as_adviser_%E2%
> > > 80%93_November_2014
> > >
> > > --
> > > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
> wayuukanairua
> > > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
> junain."
> > > Carlos M. Colina
> > > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > www.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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Need help about Wikipedia in science

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

Thank you all for very valuable information and ideas!!

Erlend Bjørtvedt
WMNO

Den mandag 24. november 2014 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> følgende:

> Hoi,
> Today or tomorrow, time permitting I will blog about how universities can
> check what alumni and employees are known for them in Wikipedia (ie
> Wikidata). At the moment I know the following: 195085 people
> <
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B69%5D
> >
> with
> an alma mater, men
> <
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM%5B31%3A5%5D%20AND%20CLAIM%5B21%3A6581097%5D%20%20and%20claim%5B69%5D
> >
>  158649 women
> <
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM%5B31%3A5%5D%20AND%20CLAIM%5B21%3A6581072%5D%20and%20claim%5B69%5D
> >
> 29059
> geen sex 7377.
>
> It is very easy to provide the same information per university. It allows
> for editathons and special interest for the female alumni. It is for you to
> decide how best to use this. For your information, the Reasonator will show
> up to 500 linked to the item of the university  DO REMEMBER that alumni
> or professors may be known in other languages... I blogged about a
> professor of the University of Utrecht recently...
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 24 November 2014 at 09:57, Erlend Bjørtvedt  > wrote:
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > I need your help.
> >
> > In a weeks time, I am invited by the Norwegian Science Council to meet
> them
> > and lecture and discuss about how they can nurture and contribute to the
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > The Science Council (Forskningsrådet) organizes all the universities,
> > colleges, and institutes sector as regards research, through funding and
> > program evalution.
> >
> > The task is that they will first produce a "do-it-your-self-kit" to
> > scientists and researchers on how they can fulfill they obligation of
> > educating the public. Thereafter, they will work more targetedly with
> > pinpointing and contributing directly to the Wikipedia, probably Commons
> > too.
> >
> > Our good partners in the Arts Council Norway have already worked with us
> > for a long time on their public outreach obligation, and will take part
> in
> > the meeting and speak about how they have nurtured the outreach of
> cultural
> > heritage through Wikipedia and Commons.
> >
> > QUESTION:
> >
> > Where can I find good overviews of:
> >
> > - Examples of universities or institutions who have "used" Wikipedia to
> > educate the public
> >
> > - Examples of professions or individual researchers who have done the
> same
> >
> > - Examples of formal co-operations between science and Wikimedia
> movement,
> > as reference
> >
> > - Examples from your chapter of co-operation with science / universities
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you all,
> >
> > Erlend
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >  *Erlend Bjørtvedt*
> > Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
> > Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
> > Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
> >  http://no.wikimedia.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,
> >  ?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,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
 http://no.wikimedia.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Frédéric Schütz]

On 29/11/14 10:05, Lodewijk wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. It's surprising to me that posting a bank
> account number could lead to fraud - the bank systems are supposed to be
> robust enough for that.

My understanding is this is mostly a problem in the US, from what I
heard from Garfield. I asked him because Wikimedia CH broadcast its IBAN
number everywhere for the fundraising, so I would have liked to know of
any potential problem, but there does not seem to be any in Europe.

(I don't know much about the US banking system, but it looks like
knowing someone's account number may indeed be enough to wreak havoc on
their account; see for example the recollection of computer scientist
Donald Knuth, who had to stop sending checks to people who discover
errors in his books: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/news08.html)

> I know that all charities in the Netherlands post
> this number on their website - maybe it could be worth while to reach out
> and see if switching banks might improve the security, if Citibank didn't
> fix it themselves?

It is definitively the case in Switzerland too -- and the reason why we
(Wikimedia CH) are very efficient at low cost fundraising: the marginal
cost of direct bank deposit is close to 0%. And we get about 6 bank
deposits for every credit card donation.

F.


> Anyway, best of luck with fixing the underlying problem!
> 
> Best,
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Garfield Byrd  wrote:
> 
>> Lodewijk,
>>
>> IBAN and bank account information is sent out upon request due to the level
>> of attempted bank fraud when the account information was posted on the
>> website.
>>
>> I can review with our bank to see if IBAN security and fraud protection has
>> improved so that we can publicly post our IBAN number.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Garfield
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Lodewijk 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Patricia,
>>>
>>> Thanks for telling that the iDEAL will be back soon. I don't quite
>>> understand from your answer why you add the increased hurdle of emailing
>>> the team for the IBAN though. Am I overlooking something?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Patricia Pena 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Lodewijk,

 Currently IDEAL is temporarily down on our pages (it went into
>>> maintenance
 mode after our annual campaign), but should be back up soon :)  We know
 the importance of this method for Dutch donors and have supported this
 option since we started fundraising in the NL. We also support offline
>>> bank
 transfer (IBAN) and donors can get the account number with our Donor
 Services team.

 We had an extremely successful Fundraising campaign this year, and
>> there
 will be some great mobile optimization coming up in the next few
>> months,
 which will allow mobile donors to complete their donations in a much
>>> faster
 and easier way.

 Thanks!
 Pats

 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Lodewijk <
>> lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
 wrote:

> A while back now, the chapters were no longer allowed to fundraise,
 because
> the Wikimedia Foundation argued they would be better able to do this.
>>> At
> the time, this sounded somewhat reasonable. However, since then,
>> there
 have
> been some disturbing developments - at least for Dutch donors.
>
> No longer it is possible to pay electronically (iDEAL, one of the
>> most
> common methods is no longer supported - 'electronic banking' simply
 refers
> you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer
 (using
> an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page
> <
>

>>>
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=NL&uselang=en&utm_medium=spontaneous&utm_source=fr-redir&utm_campaign=spontaneous
>>
> only
> allows credit card and paypal, and the 'other ways to give' simply
>>> sends
> you to the helpdesk if you want to make a bank transfer payment.
>
> What is the reasoning behind this? Have bank transfers become a legal
> swamp? Are there statistics suggesting that this method was no longer
> required by donors? Did the European bank account somehow get
>>> temporarily
> suspended?
>
> If it has become so hard to donate, maybe it makes more sense to send
>>> the
> donors to the local chapter pages where they can actually donate in
>> the
> local suitable methods (in this case, Wikimedia Netherlands offers
>> both
> iDEAL and IBAN
> ).
>
> One of the Dutch OTRS team members asked for elaboration, but didn't
 quite
> get a satisfying answer. I hope this is a temporary situation, and
>> that
> this threshold will be removed again. It would be sad if we go
>> through
 all
> kind of trouble to enable long tail methods like bitcoin, b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[David Gerard]

On 30 November 2014 at 23:30, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
> higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
> increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
> increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
> this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
> world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
> And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will
> make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable
> policy in the developing world.


Do we have numbers showing this happening? If so, that's a powerful
story we could use.


> Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
> organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
> logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
> And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
> network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
> other zero-rated services may pose.


It's pretty clearly for the greater glory of free knowledge.

I wonder if we can get other free content along for the ride, get that
zero-rated too.


- d.

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

Jens Best writes:

> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)

Jens, rather than argue with you point by point, let me outline what
my own views are.

First, I'm a long-standing supporter of the Wikipedia mission to make
the world's information available for free to everyone. Second, I'm a
longstanding supporter of network neutrality. Third, I have no
organizational interest in favoring Wikipedia, although I consider
myself a Wikipedian.

I do not believe the Wikimedia mission--providing the world's
information to everyone for free--has any necessary connection to
network neutrality, even though I favor the latter very much. In
short, I'm entirely willing to modify my secondary goal (net
neutrality) if it advances my primary goal as a Wikipedian (free
knowledge for everyone). Conversely, I'm not willing to modify my
free-knowledge goal at all if it conflicts with an absolutist model of
network neutrality.

Here's what we know about internet access in the developing world
(which Wikipedia Zero is designed to serve): it relies primarily on
mobile platforms, and mobile smartphones typically are saddled with
data caps. Data caps discourage users from using Wikipedia as
extensively as we in the developed world use it. Furthermore, they
certainly discourage contributions from the developing world for the
same reason. Sidestepping those costs for would-be Wikipedians and
Wikipedia users is something very closely aligned with the
long-standing mission of the project.

Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
But we don't have to let their propagandists define us. Instead, we
have to communicate why Wikipedia Zero is not like what commercial
interests are doing.

What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will
make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable
policy in the developing world.

Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
other zero-rated services may pose.


--Mike Godwin

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
An IBAN number is NOT a credit card ... You need a ping number in
combination with some smart card functionality in order to make it work..
The combination generates a number that is always different..

You can steal my card but making use of it without the pin number is really
hard, next to impossible.. At that Europe has better card security than the
USA.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 30 November 2014 at 19:40, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 11/30/2014 10:19 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
>> Michael Snow, 30/11/2014 01:03:
>>
>>> One avenue for fraud that's facilitated by posting account numbers is
>>> small payment fraud, usually involving stolen credit cards.
>>> [.]
>>>
>>
>> So what all this message have to do with IBAN?
>>
> As the rest of the message discussed, the fraudsters can use the IBAN to
> make a "donation" in order to test that stolen card information belongs to
> a real credit card.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Role and size of the Wikimedia Foundation and chapters

[Ryan Lane]

MZMcBride  mzmcbride.com> writes:

> 
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >Do not be daft. The Wikimedia Foundation centralised its fundraising. It
> >said that it would do a better job. Seen from a central periphery model,
> >it probably does, However seen from the Netherlands it is rather silly.,
> >
> >Pooh poohing this away with "you can donate time as well" is fine when you
> >are in the centre.
> 
> I see a few inter-related questions here that I think must be resolved
> during the drafting of the next Strategic Plan:
> 
> * who should primarily be responsible for collecting donations?
> 
> * how large, in terms of staff and budget, should the Wikimedia Foundation
>   be?
> 
> * how large, in terms of staff and budget, should individual chapters be?
> 
> * should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to be headquartered in San
>   Francisco?
> 
> * how do we measure effectiveness/impact of programs by the Wikimedia
>   Foundation and chapters?
> 
> I personally don't think the current model of having so many staff in such
> an expensive area of the world is practical or sustainable. The cost of
> being in San Francisco, California seems to _far_ outweigh any benefit
> it's providing. It's been six years since the Wikimedia Foundation moved
> out to San Francisco and what do we have to show for it? Weekly lunches
> with Wikia? Ugh. Is $60 million a year really needed? I doubt it, we did
> just fine with a fraction of that amount. But these questions and their
> answers all need to be thoroughly explored, in my opinion.
> 

Based on what the foundation is willing to pay for engineers, you're
probably right that it doesn't have a lot of benefit, since it's not a major
consideration for a lot of tech folks in the area. Wikimedia also isn't a
very active member of the tech community in San Francisco. When I attend
meetups and conferences, the thing I hear the most is "Wikimedia is in San
Francisco?".

Really, though, based on the salaries paid, it doesn't matter where they're
headquartered, since that cost would likely be similar anywhere.

From a cost perspective, I'd be looking at the ratio of management and
non-management. I'd also ask how much is being spent on management and
executive training events (aka retreats).

- Ryan




___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Ryan Lane]

MZMcBride  mzmcbride.com> writes:

> 
> Ryan Lane wrote:
> >Kim Bruning  ...> writes (roughly):
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
> >> 
> >
> >The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
> >amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things
> >the foundation has done). [...]
> 
> I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
> possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
> It has a MediaWiki extension
>  and custom back-end
> (Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
> the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
> infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
> I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
> addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
> overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
> unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.
> 

It was a project created and lead by the business development folks and was
given some engineering resources to make it happen. It's been incredibly
successful and has a real and important impact. Even taking engineering
projects into consideration, this is one of Wikimedia's most impacting
projects from the point of view of the mission.

> >My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
> >foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
> >(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
> >department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
> 
> This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong.   Gayle's title is "Chief
> Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone
> else who reports to her; cf.
> . I agree
> that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
> speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
> Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
> Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
> another thread.)
> 

http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/

Sorry, I used director instead of chief. That doesn't change the fact that
her role is to lead HR. If you look at the staff page, you'll see this is in
the case and from a practical point of view, she does HR stuff.

Having any C level respond to the press is a bad approach, especially with a
subject this touchy. This is the entire reason for having a
communications/brand department.

- Ryan


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Ryan Lane]

Mark  writes:

> 
> I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about 
> economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 
> 1. have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored 
> uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain 
> favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done 
> with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and 
> administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying 
> pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is 
> favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), 
> which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.
> 


While a fine and principled view this is, its strict nature harms those
we're most interested in reaching.

We really need to consider what we're after when talking about net
neutrality. Offering free access to services to subscribers who don't have
data plans (most likely because they can't afford them) is a much different
thing than tiered levels of access for people who are paying for data.
Assuming there's no conflict of interest from the telecoms themselves this
is not actively harmful.

Note that for your points, neither 1 nor 2 is true, since there's no
standard rate.

- Ryan


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Michael Snow, 30/11/2014 19:40:

As the rest of the message discussed, the fraudsters can use the IBAN to
make a "donation" in order to test that stolen card information belongs
to a real credit card.


Are you sure you know what an IBAN is?

Anyway, please inform the European Central Bank of your findings, I'm 
sure they'll be interested in hearing them. Currently their website 
seems unaware of such fraud possibilities and contains statements such 
as «Sensitive data payment: Data which could be used to carry out fraud, 
excluding the name of the account owner and the account number».



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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Todd Allen]

"Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."

Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.

Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
differently than data from another source" is a violation of net
neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
treatment is never accepted.

Todd

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jens Best  wrote:

> 2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:
>
> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)
>
> Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with
> good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more
> commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last
> consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.
>
> Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
> a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
> (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know,
> that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl.
> mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it.
> So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be
> treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy.
> It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the
> people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of
> any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different
> against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of
> data.
>
> Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started
> with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every
> country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state
> of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This
> shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to
> think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we
> shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a
> web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.
>
>
> best regards
>
> Jens Best
>
> 2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
>
> > On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > > I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> > > not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
> >
> > That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
> > neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is
> > by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
> >
> > Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
> > of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
> > conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
> >
> > One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
> > to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
> > slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
> > giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
> > clearly wrong.
> >
> > What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
> > welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
> > of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
> > their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
> > -- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
> > hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
> > advantage they cannot get as well.
> >
> > So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> > And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> > are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
> >
> > And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
> > view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
> > stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
> > no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
> > us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
> > another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
> > where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
> >
> > So yeah

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Bence Damokos]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Michael Snow 
wrote:

> On 11/30/2014 10:19 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
>> Michael Snow, 30/11/2014 01:03:
>>
>>> One avenue for fraud that's facilitated by posting account numbers is
>>> small payment fraud, usually involving stolen credit cards.
>>> [.]
>>>
>>
>> So what all this message have to do with IBAN?
>>
> As the rest of the message discussed, the fraudsters can use the IBAN to
> make a "donation" in order to test that stolen card information belongs to
> a real credit card.

Thinking through your example, the fraudsters would need to have an online
interface for transfering money from a credit card to a bank account, and
getting some form of verification that the transfer went through. I am not
sure it was clear from your explanation how knowing the bank account number
any help in getting the two components for the fraud (the transfer system
and the verification), as opposed to the donation system itself (which does
not have to reveal the destination account number, and which in the case of
the WMF is likely a different account then the bank account whose number
was previously displayed online).

Best regards,
Bence

>
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Jan Ainali]

2014-11-30 19:40 GMT+01:00 Michael Snow :

> On 11/30/2014 10:19 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
>> Michael Snow, 30/11/2014 01:03:
>>
>>> One avenue for fraud that's facilitated by posting account numbers is
>>> small payment fraud, usually involving stolen credit cards.
>>> [.]
>>>
>>
>> So what all this message have to do with IBAN?
>>
> As the rest of the message discussed, the fraudsters can use the IBAN to
> make a "donation" in order to test that stolen card information belongs to
> a real credit card.


Is IBAN more vulnerable to this than just the possibility to being able to
donate from a credit card at all?

/Jan
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Michael Snow]

On 11/30/2014 10:19 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Michael Snow, 30/11/2014 01:03:

One avenue for fraud that's facilitated by posting account numbers is
small payment fraud, usually involving stolen credit cards. 
[.]


So what all this message have to do with IBAN?
As the rest of the message discussed, the fraudsters can use the IBAN to 
make a "donation" in order to test that stolen card information belongs 
to a real credit card.


--Michael Snow

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of Delphine Ménard, Lodewijk Gelauff and Bence Damokos as AffCom Advisers

[Keilana]

Thank you so much for being willing to offer your considerable expertise!

-Emily

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> Congratulations! I know each of them personally, and I have no doubt they
> will bring huge expertise to the committee!
>
> Good luck!
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Carlos M. Colina  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Recently the Affiliations Commitee, in order to improve its governance
> and
> > in its need for improvement and organizational advise, voted in favor of
> > appointing Delphine Ménard [1], Lodewijk Gelauff [2] and Bence Damokos
> [3]
> > as non-voting advisers . They have provided this committee during their
> > respective tenures as full members of this committee with invaluable
> > expertise, governance advise and language and communication skills.
> Hence,
> > this committee has decided to appoint them as advisers for a term ending
> on
> > Deceber 31, 2016.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance to Delphine, Lodewijk and Bence for their
> > contributions and support to the Affiliations Committee. And of course,
> > congratulations!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Carlos
> >
> > 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_
> > adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
> > 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_
> > adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
> > 3: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > Resolutions/Appointment_of_Bence_Damokos_as_adviser_%E2%
> > 80%93_November_2014
> >
> > --
> > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > Carlos M. Colina
> > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Michael Snow, 30/11/2014 01:03:

One avenue for fraud that's facilitated by posting account numbers is
small payment fraud, usually involving stolen credit cards.  [.]


So what all this message have to do with IBAN?

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Jens Best]

2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:

First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
quite an coincidence? ;)

Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with
good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more
commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last
consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.

Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know,
that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl.
mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it.
So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be
treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy.
It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the
people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of
any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different
against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of data.

Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started
with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every
country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state
of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This
shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to
think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we
shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a
web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.


best regards

Jens Best

2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier :

> On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> > not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
>
> That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
> neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is
> by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
>
> Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
> of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
> conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
>
> One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
> to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
> slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
> giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
> clearly wrong.
>
> What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
> welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
> of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
> their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
> -- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
> hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
> advantage they cannot get as well.
>
> So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
>
> And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
> view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
> stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
> no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
> us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
> another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
> where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
>
> So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally
> defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is
> inadequate.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Our community, movement and our foundation is pretty darn good. When you
consider all the imperfections, there is after all room for improvement, it
is really amazing how much is achieved on such a shoestring budget. We pay
the prize for under-investing in our organisation, in our infrastructure.
Our "primary" systems however are pretty stable.

My point is not that we should lose our ethos but that we should be more
smart about it. It is only fairly recently that we have the talent to
really improve the basics of our infra structure. We now have our systems
in multiple professional locations, The guts of MediaWiki is changing in
more than one way. Wikidata will make a splash in 2015. As it is, it is has
so much room for growth. The biggest amount of data will arrive from the
bigger projects however, the biggest potential is in the 250 other
languages that we support.

Yes, there are plenty individual stories that suck. But our projects will
never be like Nupedia. Some people have to revisit what we learned. One of
the lessons was that we can be and should be daring and innovative. Not
heeding this lesson is what will most likely do us in.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 30 November 2014 at 15:23, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> hi mz,
>
> you are right, the whole wikipedia is built by volunteer time and
> could have not been built otherwise. so volunteer time clearly is
> worth significantly more. i sometimes feel ripped off as a volunteer.
> first i donate my time, and then people approach me to addtionally
> spend money for a conference, like last year in geneva 250eur for an
> open knowledge conference. or i want to meet a person who is not
> wealthy enough to pay her trip to london within the UK, and there is
> no way to get her a 100 gbp, as happend last year. wmf is not capable
> - i should have planned this a year in advance. wmch would be flexible
> enough but a different country and punished by WMF for beeing
> flexible. wmuk does not have a budget for such a strange thing, and it
> should have known it in advance as well.
>
> so where should this money come from? the easiest and cheapest is:
> take the money from the website. coupled with a more flexible,
> localised spending scheme. so WMCH or WMUK could pay this without
> headache. but WMF does not want this. out of 60 mio usd income, 52 mio
> or 86% is spent by the wikimedia foundation, yearly increasing. and
> most of it is spent in the united states.
>
> some time in future even wmf persons will recognize that if i would be
> perfectly organized and most intelligent person in the world i would
> use zero time for wikipedia. i'd instead sell my time as expensive as
> possible, and i'd be rich as bill gates. the foundation, and even some
> chapters, give the impression only perfect persons are good enough for
> them. or, even worse, treat them deliberatly like cattle. the core of
> its movement with it turns away, as those people are not good enough.
> and as bill gates and the other perfect persons will not contribute,
> nobody will. so we are back on field one, nupedia. jimbo has his
> personal foundation which will honor him even when he is dead,
> financed by one of the worlds largest websites. the foundation pays
> 1000 persons to keep it running. no volunteers necessary.
>
> rupert
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:36 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > Wikimedia always accepts donations. If the Wikimedia Foundation can't
> > figure out a way to easily accept monetary donations from Dutch
> > Wikimedians, why not simply focus efforts on non-monetary donations?
> > Edits and other wiki contributions are far more valuable, in my opinion.
> > Wikimedia Nederland seems to already be doing a lot of great work
> > encouraging these types of contributions (e.g., Wiki Loves [X]). :-)
> >
> > For the past few years I've seen it as fairly low-hanging fruit to create
> > a tongue-in-cheek "don't donate to Wikipedia" or "donate time instead" or
> > similar campaign. Or even register "DonateToWikipedia.org" and send
> > visitors to the edit form of an article that needs love. When people ask
> > me in real-life about donating to Wikipedia (nobody knows what Wikimedia
> > is), I typically suggest making a few edits instead of donating money
> > directly. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation really needs the money
> > and I think volunteer time is worth significantly more.
> >
> > 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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[David Gerard]

On 30 November 2014 at 17:14, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.


This is arguably not an equitable proposition in practice, because
Wikimedia is *rather heavyweight* as online charities go. If we ask
for something, it carries weight.

That said, zero-priced mobile data is something the world could do
with more of. If we can push that as a good thing,


- d.

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.

That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is
by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.

Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.

One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
clearly wrong.

What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
-- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
advantage they cannot get as well.

So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.

And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).

So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally
defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is
inadequate.

-- Marc


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[MZMcBride]

Ryan Lane wrote:
>Kim Bruning  writes (roughly):
>> 
>> 
>> Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
>> 
>
>The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
>amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things
>the foundation has done). [...]

I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
It has a MediaWiki extension
 and custom back-end
(Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.

To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.

>My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
>foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
>(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
>department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong. :-)  Gayle's title is "Chief
Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone
else who reports to her; cf.
. I agree
that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
another thread.)

I'll let others respond on the basic point here about whether Wikipedia
Zero is violating net neutrality. I personally agree with Gayle that it's
complicated. :-)  I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.

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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Role and size of the Wikimedia Foundation and chapters

[MZMcBride]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>Do not be daft. The Wikimedia Foundation centralised its fundraising. It
>said that it would do a better job. Seen from a central periphery model,
>it probably does, However seen from the Netherlands it is rather silly.,
>
>Pooh poohing this away with "you can donate time as well" is fine when you
>are in the centre.

I see a few inter-related questions here that I think must be resolved
during the drafting of the next Strategic Plan:

* who should primarily be responsible for collecting donations?

* how large, in terms of staff and budget, should the Wikimedia Foundation
  be?

* how large, in terms of staff and budget, should individual chapters be?

* should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to be headquartered in San
  Francisco?

* how do we measure effectiveness/impact of programs by the Wikimedia
  Foundation and chapters?

I personally don't think the current model of having so many staff in such
an expensive area of the world is practical or sustainable. The cost of
being in San Francisco, California seems to _far_ outweigh any benefit
it's providing. It's been six years since the Wikimedia Foundation moved
out to San Francisco and what do we have to show for it? Weekly lunches
with Wikia? Ugh. Is $60 million a year really needed? I doubt it, we did
just fine with a fraction of that amount. But these questions and their
answers all need to be thoroughly explored, in my opinion.

> so where should this money come from? the easiest and cheapest is:
> take the money from the website. coupled with a more flexible,
> localised spending scheme. so WMCH or WMUK could pay this without
> headache. but WMF does not want this. out of 60 mio usd income, 52 mio
> or 86% is spent by the wikimedia foundation, yearly increasing. and
> most of it is spent in the united states.

A big theme I see here is that we need to hold the Wikimedia Foundation to
the same standards as the chapters in terms of funds allocation. There's a
process for the Wikimedia Foundation and there's a process for everybody
else, and that is unfair and needs to be fixed. I thought we were getting
closer to resolving this by having the Wikimedia Foundation budget go
through the Funds Dissemination Committee or Annual Plan Grants or similar.

My sense is that currently people are (rightly) deeply offended that the
chapters are being held to a much higher standard than the Wikimedia
Foundation, particularly in terms of discretionary spending, but also in
terms of how programs are measured. The Wikimedia Foundation has made
plenty of costly screw-ups but these errors are seemingly completely
detached from its budget, unlike chapters. That's not right. I'm hoping we
can find concrete and addressable issues to resolve.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of Delphine Ménard, Lodewijk Gelauff and Bence Damokos as AffCom Advisers

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Congratulations! I know each of them personally, and I have no doubt they
will bring huge expertise to the committee!

Good luck!



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Recently the Affiliations Commitee, in order to improve its governance and
> in its need for improvement and organizational advise, voted in favor of
> appointing Delphine Ménard [1], Lodewijk Gelauff [2] and Bence Damokos [3]
> as non-voting advisers . They have provided this committee during their
> respective tenures as full members of this committee with invaluable
> expertise, governance advise and language and communication skills. Hence,
> this committee has decided to appoint them as advisers for a term ending on
> Deceber 31, 2016.
>
> Many thanks in advance to Delphine, Lodewijk and Bence for their
> contributions and support to the Affiliations Committee. And of course,
> congratulations!
>
> Best regards,
> Carlos
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_
> adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_
> adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
> 3: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Appointment_of_Bence_Damokos_as_adviser_%E2%
> 80%93_November_2014
>
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[rupert THURNER]

hi mz,

you are right, the whole wikipedia is built by volunteer time and
could have not been built otherwise. so volunteer time clearly is
worth significantly more. i sometimes feel ripped off as a volunteer.
first i donate my time, and then people approach me to addtionally
spend money for a conference, like last year in geneva 250eur for an
open knowledge conference. or i want to meet a person who is not
wealthy enough to pay her trip to london within the UK, and there is
no way to get her a 100 gbp, as happend last year. wmf is not capable
- i should have planned this a year in advance. wmch would be flexible
enough but a different country and punished by WMF for beeing
flexible. wmuk does not have a budget for such a strange thing, and it
should have known it in advance as well.

so where should this money come from? the easiest and cheapest is:
take the money from the website. coupled with a more flexible,
localised spending scheme. so WMCH or WMUK could pay this without
headache. but WMF does not want this. out of 60 mio usd income, 52 mio
or 86% is spent by the wikimedia foundation, yearly increasing. and
most of it is spent in the united states.

some time in future even wmf persons will recognize that if i would be
perfectly organized and most intelligent person in the world i would
use zero time for wikipedia. i'd instead sell my time as expensive as
possible, and i'd be rich as bill gates. the foundation, and even some
chapters, give the impression only perfect persons are good enough for
them. or, even worse, treat them deliberatly like cattle. the core of
its movement with it turns away, as those people are not good enough.
and as bill gates and the other perfect persons will not contribute,
nobody will. so we are back on field one, nupedia. jimbo has his
personal foundation which will honor him even when he is dead,
financed by one of the worlds largest websites. the foundation pays
1000 persons to keep it running. no volunteers necessary.

rupert

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:36 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Wikimedia always accepts donations. If the Wikimedia Foundation can't
> figure out a way to easily accept monetary donations from Dutch
> Wikimedians, why not simply focus efforts on non-monetary donations?
> Edits and other wiki contributions are far more valuable, in my opinion.
> Wikimedia Nederland seems to already be doing a lot of great work
> encouraging these types of contributions (e.g., Wiki Loves [X]). :-)
>
> For the past few years I've seen it as fairly low-hanging fruit to create
> a tongue-in-cheek "don't donate to Wikipedia" or "donate time instead" or
> similar campaign. Or even register "DonateToWikipedia.org" and send
> visitors to the edit form of an article that needs love. When people ask
> me in real-life about donating to Wikipedia (nobody knows what Wikimedia
> is), I typically suggest making a few edits instead of donating money
> directly. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation really needs the money
> and I think volunteer time is worth significantly more.
>
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[rupert THURNER]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane  wrote:
> Kim Bruning  writes:
>
>>
>>
>> Washington post article
>>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>>
>
> The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
> amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the
> foundation has done). Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
> concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
> mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
> There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
>
> My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
> foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
> (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
> department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

i find this article very good. and also gale gives a quite balanced
and reasonable statement. ryan, the sentence from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality is:
"... should treat all data on the Internet equally..."
if you could elaborate a little how paying for one source, and not
paying for another is "equal"?

rupert

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mark]

On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:

Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.


I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about 
economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 
1. have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored 
uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain 
favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done 
with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and 
administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying 
pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is 
favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), 
which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.


-Mark


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?

[Fæ]

On 30 November 2014 at 07:35, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
...
> Do not be daft. The Wikimedia Foundation centralised its fundraising. It
> said that it would do a better job. Seen from a central periphery model, it
> probably does, However seen from the Netherlands it is rather silly.,
...

I believe that the current process of centralizing funds in the USA
that are actually taken in Europe and then paid out outside of the USA
is *highly* inefficient. By the time the WMF and local organization
(i.e. chapter, thorg, user group or project) costs of fundraising,
grant applications, administration and reporting, payment costs and
significant tax burden are considered, this (avoidable system) throws
away at least 40c out of each donated $1 before we can even start
calculating the extra administration costs/wastage from that point on,
which as a past Chapter chair, I know can easily be a further 50%
compounded on the cost.

Despite this being raised several times over the last few years, no
chapter or the WMF has unambiguously or straight-forwardly calculated
the true end-to-end processing costs. As a consequence, this can only
be a guesstimate based on experience.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Ryan Lane]

Kim Bruning  writes:

> 
> 
> Washington post article
> 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> 

The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the
foundation has done). Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.

My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

- Ryan Lane


___
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,