Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

The removal is not transparent at all.

Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.

Very disappointing.

> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> 
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
> 
> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
> transparent.
> 
> best,
> rupert
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Board nominees

[Pine W]

Hi Board folks and Boryana,

Separate from the discussions about Doc James, can we get an update on the
appointment of new members?

Thanks,
Pine
On Sep 25, 2015 5:04 PM, "Boryana Dineva"  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> As you may have heard, I joined the Wikimedia Foundation last Monday as the
> VP of Human Resources. I am so excited to be here and help to the best of
> my abilities.
>
> One of the projects that I am currently focusing on is adding two members
> to our board of trustees. I wanted to reach out to you and ask you to
> nominate candidates that you think should be considered.
>
> I am attaching a role description that will provide more insight into what
> the ideal candidates for these two board slots would be. If someone you
> know comes to mind, please send the name of the candidate including some
> information regarding why you think they would be great. Also let me know
> if you know that person is interested in the position and can afford the
> time commitment the role will require or if it’s someone you think may be
> great but are unsure if they are interested or would have time to commit.
>
> Please email nominations to board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org by next
> Wednesday, Sept 30th. I understand that this is a short notice and not much
> time to nominate, but we need to find someone that can start in Nov and we
> need to contact, screen, interview, etc before then.
>
> Thank you in advance for your nominations and have a wonderful weekend!
>
> Warmest regards,
> Boryana
> ___
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Newyorkbrad]

I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
page, I have copied his comment below:

"Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
December 2015 (UTC)"

I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
aware of it..

I also agree that the information about the two new board members
should be circulated promptly.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki  wrote:
> The removal is not transparent at all.
>
> Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.
>
> Very disappointing.
>
>> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
>> > least
>> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
>> > able
>> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
>> > without
>> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
>> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
>> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
>>
>> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
>> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
>> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
>> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
>> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
>> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
>> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
>> transparent.
>>
>> best,
>> rupert
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

...and you seem to think one can live by an encyclopedia. I can assure you,
Wikipedia is a lot of things, but it is not a way of life. To answer your
fear which I read between the lines of what you are saying, in order to
create a Wikipedia project you need a basic list of 10,000 articles. The
list as I am sure you are aware, is a pretty boring and strangely ordered
grouping of fairly dry, non-political subjects. I believe there are very
few articles on there that are worth firebombing someone over. [[Michael
Jackson]] is on the list, among other notable Americans. Granted, you could
get past the 10,000 article startup requirement somehow and then start
creating lots of POV articles, but once you do this you will soon be
discovered. There is just no way to hide it.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lilburne 
> wrote:
>
> > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> >
> >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> when
> >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> shouldn't
> >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
> >> will
> >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is
> why
> >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just block
> >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of
> the
> >> Kazakh people.
> >>
> >>
> > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what it
> > showed them in their feeds.
> >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> >
> > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of people.
> > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> large
> > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap, vote
> > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
> >
> > Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> > jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
>
>
>
> I thought Epstein's and Robertson's paper, "The search engine manipulation
> effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections", was
> very interesting as well:
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > Well the chances of me being firebombed while on vacation in the states
> are
> > probably higher than me being firebombed for editing Wikipedia, but that
> > still doesn't mean we need to worry about changing the wiki model. I
> guess
> > I have lost the thread of your point entirely now.
>
>
>
> To be honest, I don't think you had ever gotten hold of it in the first
> place. To me, you seem to live in a very sheltered and naive world.
>
> If we have reports of Wikipedians being tortured in Azerbaijan (and there
> seems to have been some truth to these reports, as the sysop named in them
> was globally blocked by the WMF a short while later[1]), you should be able
> to understand that it is not quite as easy to live the wiki way there as it
> is in your country, and that some of the assumptions you have formed based
> on your own experiences of the wiki model may not hold in other locales.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Irada=12421543=7322889
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Wishlist Survey: Top 10 wishes!

[Henning Schlottmann]

On 29.12.2015 03:40, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> This is not an "either/or" situation. At least in the past, when I have
> manually added Wayback Machine links (or seen them added by bots), they do
> not *replace* dead links, they merely complement them. The English
> Wikipedia templates include two separate parameters for "url" and
> "archiveurl".

That's true only for a) external links that use templates and b) it
assumes that people will be motivated to check for alternatives to
archive links despite their immediate need for information seems to be
satisfied by the archive link.

Maybe I'm not typical in this, but I prefer a dead link over a link to
the archive that was set by a bot without checking for a live link anytime.

Ciao Henning


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:00 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> >In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
> >lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner.
>
> The removal resolution was approved on December 28, 2015, according to
> wikimediafoundation.org. Unlike most Board resolutions, it was publicly
> posted the same day. The posted Board resolution was accompanied by two
> separate e-mails to this public mailing list (one from James, one from
> Patricio) on the same day. What kind of transparency and timeliness are
> you looking for, exactly? What level of explanation would be satisfactory?
>
> >Why not let them make their own excuses?
>
> Excuses for what, exactly? The Chair of the Board announced the decision
> and other remaining Board members have chosen not to publicly discuss the
> issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
> in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
> to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
> cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
> numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
> a fuller explanation of the removal. It seems most prudent to wait for
> that. While this will sound trite, perhaps we could extend a little good
> faith to the members of the Board, most of whom are long-time trusted and
> respected Wikimedians and all of whom take their role seriously.
>
> MZMcBride
>

>

If you aren't sure what I or others are still looking for from the Board,
please refer to the various other posts to this and other threads. I
suspect you've read them already, so I'm not sure why you think it helpful
to pretend like you don't understand.

Asking for the board to be forthcoming isn't an attack or an unreasonable
expectation. No one on the board should be surprised to discover the
subscribers to this list and others have high expectations for
communication and transparency. If they had time to fully consider their
decision to remove James, then they had time to plan for how to communicate
that decision. If they are scrambling behind the scenes to do that now,
then it suggests the decision to remove him was either rash or an
emergency. In either case, that is something many of us would like to know.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to the first four organizations to receive Simple Annual Plan Grants!

[Winifred Olliff]

Dear Wikimedia colleagues:

In response to feedback about the grants process

that identified a gap in support for organizations and groups with annual
plans that are not part of the FDC process
, we on the WMF's Community
Resources Team created a new pilot process for Simple Annual Plan Grants
. These grants are for
groups and organizations that need funds for operating and program expenses
up to US$100K (or its equivalent in another currency).

This process has been developed in partnership with a committee of eight
volunteers ,
who make recommendations about each grant application, which are then
approved by WMF staff. I would like to recognize the outstanding work of
our inaugural committee: Addis Wang, Anders Wennersten, Kiril Simeonovski,
Kirill Lokshin, Ido Ivri, Nataliia Tymkiv, Pete Ekman, and Sydney Poore.
Besides producing four quality recommendations this month (found on the
discussion pages of the four applications
),
they've done invaluable work to define how this new funding option will
work, and offered constructive and supportive feedback to the applicants.

I also want to recognize and congratulate our first four grantees:
Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Eesti, Wikimedia Espana, and Shared
Knowledge (user group in Macedonia). Each grantee did an outstanding job
engaging during every phase of the grants process, and we are confident
that each is preparing for an amazing year in 2016. Many thanks to all of
the dedicated volunteers and staff at each organization that made these
quality applications happen, including Bojan Jankuloski, Jan Loužek, Kiril
Simeonevski, Kaarel Vaidla, Luis Ulzurrun, Santiago Navarro, Vojtěch Dostál
and the volunteer boards and supportive community members at each of these
organizations.

Finally, thank you to our colleagues Janice Tud, Siko Bouterse, Stephen
LaPorte, and the WMF finance team, for supporting these grantees behind the
scenes. Thanks to Katy Love, Kacie Harold, and the entire Community
Resources Team, past and current Funds Dissemination Committee members,
current and past APG applicants, and particularly Ravishankar
Ayyakkannu, for sharing their ideas and experiences leading up to this
idea. Special thanks also to Tony Souter and Bence Damokos for their
substantial feedback during the early phases of the pilot's development.

Are you interested in learning more about how the new funding option could
work for your group or organization? Please Email me to start a discussion
about your organization's application, and read more about how to apply
.
Applications will be accepted throughout 2016.

Best wishes and congratulations to all our colleagues who received grants
in 2015, or helped to improve the grants process!

Winifred

Helpful links for Simple Annual Plan Grants:
*Apply here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility
*About the program: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About
*Committee: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee

-- 
Winifred Olliff
Program Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[rupert THURNER]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
> in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
> to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
> cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
> numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide

like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
transparent.

best,
rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

Interesting link, thanks Gerard! I was referring to a citation for this
quote however:
"and a
> significant
> > selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the quality,
> > integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
> > projects."

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

>
> http://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/ainl_guidelines_use_of_force.pdf
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 13:30, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > citation needed
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect
> as
> > > > those from Kazakhstan.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation  is so important, ​
> > >
> > > ​because the person receiving the information must able to make their
> own
> > > assessment​ of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a
> > significant
> > > selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the
> quality,
> > > integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then
> what?
> > > >
> > > > If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there
> is
> > > no
> > > > plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not
> only
> > in
> > > > sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right.
> Many
> > > > important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it
> > > that
> > > > it is because of a lack of sources..
> > > >
> > > > Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular
> subjects.
> > > We
> > > > do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable
> > source)
> > > > indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
> > > > international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
> > > >
> > > > When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we
> > effectively
> > > > improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they
> > found.
> > > > Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means
> that
> > > > more information is linked for people who visit a library. When
> awards
> > > are
> > > > known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from
> multiple
> > > > Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links
> > are
> > > > exposed.
> > > >
> > > > When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a
> > > better
> > > > job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
> > > > Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that
> > > manipulation
> > > > is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data
> on
> > > > their hobby horse.
> > > >
> > > > Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources
> are
> > > > used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata,
> > then
> > > in
> > > > my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first
> > > place.
> > > > It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of
> information
> > > we
> > > > created, a web that is of a NPOV.
> > > >
> > > > Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many
> > places.
> > > As
> > > > the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> > > > manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But
> do
> > > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect
> as
> > > > those from Kazakhstan.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide
> it
> > > > when
> > > > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good
> > Faith"
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which
> > is
> > > > why
> > > > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> > > block
> > > > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >> Kazakh people.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by
> > what
> > > it
> > > > > showed them in their feeds.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Newyorkbrad  wrote:

> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> page, I have copied his comment below:
>
> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> aware of it..
>
> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> should be circulated promptly.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM


Thanks Brad.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board (Olatunde Isaac)

[olatunde isaac]

I find the remover of James very disappointing. He was elected by the community 
and his remover should follow a due process and be transparent to the community 
who elected him. 

Olatunde Isaac

(User:Wikicology)
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Tue, 29 
Dec 2015 17:40:01 
To: 
Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 97

Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (rupert THURNER)
   2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Steinsplitter Wiki)
   3. Re: Call for Board nominees (Pine W)
   4. Re: Quality issues (Jane Darnell)
   5. Re: Quality issues (Jane Darnell)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
From: rupert THURNER 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

Well I may live in a fantasy world, but that is entirely beside the point.
When I say these things will be discovered, that's exactly what you are
saying happened years ago. These things will always be discovered, because
they are unhidable. In your example the Uzbek Wikipedians have learned to
stay off certain pages in order to coexist with Uzbek authorities. Similar
coping strategies exist on other projects. It doesn't mean the entire Uzbek
encyclopedia is untrustworthy or that the wiki model is at fault. The trail
of tears is in the talk pages. I don't see anything wrong with making such
concessions, since after discovery it becomes public record and everyone
knows it anyway. What I don't understand is what you are trying to say. If
you are proposing something, just come out and propose it instead of
complaining about what goes on in certain projects and jumping from one
scare tactic to another.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > Granted, you could
> > get past the 10,000 article startup requirement somehow and then start
> > creating lots of POV articles, but once you do this you will soon be
> > discovered. There is just no way to hide it.
>
>
>
> Jane, you're living in a fantasy world. We already have Wikipedias with
> these POV articles. They've been "discovered" long ago, and it makes zero
> difference.
>
> See e.g. the hagiography of the Uzbek President in the Uzbek Wikipedia[1]
> (him of the boiled dissidents). It hails him as the best thing since sliced
> bread.
>
> Then see what Human Rights organisations have to say about his regime[2],
> or compare the English Wikipedia article.[3]
>
> That train left the station a long time ago. The wiki model does *not* work
> in these contexts.
>
> [1]
>
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en=uz=en=https%3A%2F%2Fuz.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIslom_Karimov=1
> [2] https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/uzbekistan
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Karimov#Human_rights_and_press_freedom
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lilburne <
> lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> > > when
> > > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > > shouldn't
> > > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good
> Faith"
> > > >> will
> > > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which
> is
> > > why
> > > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> > block
> > > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that
> of
> > > the
> > > >> Kazakh people.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by
> what
> > it
> > > > showed them in their feeds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> > > >
> > > > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > > > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of
> > people.
> > > > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> > > large
> > > > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap,
> > vote
> > > > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
> > > >
> > > > Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> > > > jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Epstein's and Robertson's paper, "The search engine
> > manipulation
> > > effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections",
> was
> > > very interesting as well:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548
> > >
> > > http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Jane Darnell 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well the chances of me being firebombed while on vacation in the
> states
> > > are
> > > > probably higher than me being firebombed for editing Wikipedia, but
> > that
> > > > still doesn't mean we need to worry about changing the wiki model. I
> > > guess
> > > > I have lost the thread of your point entirely now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To be honest, I don't think you had ever gotten hold of it in the first
> > > place. To me, you seem to live in a very sheltered and naive world.
> > >
> > > If we have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Obsessed with secrecy?

[Adam Wight]

Pete, thanks for asking, and for your ever toughtful voice.

About my wiki edits:  In my volunteer time, I'm a lurker, hack translator,
fringe developer, and sometimes say obnoxious things on mailing lists or in
this case on metawiki.

About my staff position: I've sent this email from my staff account as part
of my duties to care for the organization that pays for my living, the
WMF.  I'm a 75%-time employee in the Fundraising Tech team, currently in
the sheepdog or ill-named "tech lead" role.  Great job, aside from the
hierarchical corporate structure that I oppose.

I'm looking forward to the sunshine...

Love,
Adam Roses Wight
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Adamw

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Dear Adam,
>
> Here is a sort of meta-request: could you please identify your position at
> Wikimedia?
>
> I will make this suggestion on the page, as one of the very low-hanging
> fruit items that will make a big difference: if Wikimedia staff could make
> a regular practice of listing info like their title, and stuff like user
> page and contact info as appropriate, that would make it much easier to
> understand and make sense of the huge amount of information coming from
> various channels.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Adam Wight  wrote:
>
> > There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency and
> > accountability to the broader community.  Please help identify our
> > shortcomings by contributing to this page:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Transparency_Gap
> >
> > -Adam
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Obsessed with secrecy?

[Kevin Gorman]

Hi Adam -

Thanks for the email - and the idea.  Something like this had been floating
around in the back of my head for some time, but I hadn't acted on it yet.
I'm in the middle of a desert for a few more days, but have bookmarked this
to help contribute to when I return.  (Unfortunately this is our first
experiment with solar-powered iphones, and we didn't make an array
sufficient to power ours for more than a few more minutes for the day.)

Best,
KG

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Adam Wight  wrote:

> Pete, thanks for asking, and for your ever toughtful voice.
>
> About my wiki edits:  In my volunteer time, I'm a lurker, hack translator,
> fringe developer, and sometimes say obnoxious things on mailing lists or in
> this case on metawiki.
>
> About my staff position: I've sent this email from my staff account as part
> of my duties to care for the organization that pays for my living, the
> WMF.  I'm a 75%-time employee in the Fundraising Tech team, currently in
> the sheepdog or ill-named "tech lead" role.  Great job, aside from the
> hierarchical corporate structure that I oppose.
>
> I'm looking forward to the sunshine...
>
> Love,
> Adam Roses Wight
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Adamw
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Adam,
> >
> > Here is a sort of meta-request: could you please identify your position
> at
> > Wikimedia?
> >
> > I will make this suggestion on the page, as one of the very low-hanging
> > fruit items that will make a big difference: if Wikimedia staff could
> make
> > a regular practice of listing info like their title, and stuff like user
> > page and contact info as appropriate, that would make it much easier to
> > understand and make sense of the huge amount of information coming from
> > various channels.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Adam Wight 
> wrote:
> >
> > > There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency and
> > > accountability to the broader community.  Please help identify our
> > > shortcomings by contributing to this page:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Transparency_Gap
> > >
> > > -Adam
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Kevin Gorman]

As an add-on note to Jimmy's comment, although it again comes with the
specification that I'm not a lawyer, and the only nonprofit governance
experience I have is in California rather than Florida: there's a solid
possibility that board meetings aren't held with the same sort of
non-disclosure agreement that governs many employee relationships, but
rather simply with the understanding that the contents of meetings won't be
disclosed before members of the board have generally agreed to, because all
members of the board are required to act in the best interests of the
corporation, and that's not in the best interests of the corporation under
most circumstances to announce what has happened in a board meeting before
it actually happened.  I presume James was aware of that - when I was a
member of a board with $10m a year in revenue, our counsel made it quite
clear to us that we had a duty generally speaking to disclose information,
even informatin that most of the rest of the board did not think it was in
the corporation's best interests to disclose, if we believed on a personal
level that it as in the best interests of the future of the corporation to
disclose the information (as long it didn't involve breaking contracts in
ways such as the disclosure of why disciplinary action had been taken
against an employee, etc.)

In some ways issues involving board members are signfificantly different
than issues involving employees.  Employee contracts almost always involve
clauses about the privacy of their personnel files etc, whereas this is
relatively rare for board members - the standard for departing board
members is normally something close to "Did they violate their fidicuiary
duties in a way that actually damaged the corporation? If so, disclose.
Are they leaving without cause/accusation of wrongdoing?  If so, disclose
if the departing board member desires disclosure. Are they leaving to go
frolic in a field full of ponies at their private ranch that collects cute
animals, but speculation about why they are leaving is lkely to damage the
corporation?  If so, disclose as much information as is necessary to ensure
speculation over their departure doesn't harm the company, while trying as
hard as you can not t cause them public embarrassment."  In contrast, Asaf
Bartov's contract (I'm picking a 100% random employee just to be clear) is
likely to contain limitations written in to it about what his obligations
would be to WMF if he departed willingly or unwillngly, along with what
WMF's  obligations to him would be - and in practice those will be
limitations that go far beyond the WMF's board's obligations to another
former board member, by my understanding at least.

I have no inside knowledge of what happened to be instigate Dr James'
removal, to be clear.  However, I do know that he ran on a stronger, more
detailed platform than most board candidates tend to take - [1] - and I
suspect that once he was elected to the board, he advocated for that
platform, probably in a stronger way than the WMF board is used to
operating.  I know most Wikimedians I know well supported most or all of
Doc James' platform, often quite strongly.  I hope a statement is released
by the board within the next few days specifying what exact problem Doc
James' presence on the board that caused the unprecedented (for WMF) step
of voting to directly remove a board member (especially when he's one of
only three community members directly elected by the community.  We often
hear people talking in theoreticals about the board being disconnected from
the day-to-day Wikimedian.. I hope that the board's forthcoming statement
makes entirely clear that the reasons for Doc James removal - whatever they
may be - definitely have nothing to do with Doc James advocacy of the
platform he got elected on.

The removal of what is only 1 of 3 directly community elected board reps is
an issue that should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and I really
hope that it turns out the reason for his removal turns out to be one that
justifies such serious action.  It's even more important to clarify the
reasons why James' removal was necessary, because of the sheer number of
other sensitive positions he holds throughout the Wikimedia movement.  I
also find it further concerning that while one community-elected did vote
for the removal, another community elected trustee - Dariusz Jemielniak -
who I personally hold in great respect, has written an excellent
ethnography, and is a full professor of manageml reent at Poland's top
university - voted against the removal.  I suspect that Dariusz' background
means that if it was simply the case that Doc James behavior was somehow
fundamentally incompatible with being a board member, he would've
recognized it and voted to remove.  It makes me bluntly, really nervous, to
see a motion to remove a community trustee who I think is widely suppported
as both being quite competent and having the movement's best interests at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Board nominees

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi Pine,
sure, this is where we are:

We completed the search for two appointed Board members successfully and we
plan to fill the two board positions in the first week of January. We are
in the process of final on-boarding steps and will be ready to announce on
or before January 5th with regards to the holidays.

Alice.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Board folks and Boryana,
>
> Separate from the discussions about Doc James, can we get an update on the
> appointment of new members?
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
> On Sep 25, 2015 5:04 PM, "Boryana Dineva"  wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > As you may have heard, I joined the Wikimedia Foundation last Monday as
> the
> > VP of Human Resources. I am so excited to be here and help to the best of
> > my abilities.
> >
> > One of the projects that I am currently focusing on is adding two members
> > to our board of trustees. I wanted to reach out to you and ask you to
> > nominate candidates that you think should be considered.
> >
> > I am attaching a role description that will provide more insight into
> what
> > the ideal candidates for these two board slots would be. If someone you
> > know comes to mind, please send the name of the candidate including some
> > information regarding why you think they would be great. Also let me know
> > if you know that person is interested in the position and can afford the
> > time commitment the role will require or if it’s someone you think may be
> > great but are unsure if they are interested or would have time to commit.
> >
> > Please email nominations to board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org by
> next
> > Wednesday, Sept 30th. I understand that this is a short notice and not
> much
> > time to nominate, but we need to find someone that can start in Nov and
> we
> > need to contact, screen, interview, etc before then.
> >
> > Thank you in advance for your nominations and have a wonderful weekend!
> >
> > Warmest regards,
> > Boryana
> > ___
> > 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Alice Wiegand
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Granted, you could
> get past the 10,000 article startup requirement somehow and then start
> creating lots of POV articles, but once you do this you will soon be
> discovered. There is just no way to hide it.



Jane, you're living in a fantasy world. We already have Wikipedias with
these POV articles. They've been "discovered" long ago, and it makes zero
difference.

See e.g. the hagiography of the Uzbek President in the Uzbek Wikipedia[1]
(him of the boiled dissidents). It hails him as the best thing since sliced
bread.

Then see what Human Rights organisations have to say about his regime[2],
or compare the English Wikipedia article.[3]

That train left the station a long time ago. The wiki model does *not* work
in these contexts.

[1]
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en=uz=en=https%3A%2F%2Fuz.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIslom_Karimov=1
[2] https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/uzbekistan
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Karimov#Human_rights_and_press_freedom


>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lilburne  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > >
> > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> > when
> > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > shouldn't
> > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
> > >> will
> > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is
> > why
> > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> block
> > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of
> > the
> > >> Kazakh people.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what
> it
> > > showed them in their feeds.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> > >
> > > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of
> people.
> > > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> > large
> > > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap,
> vote
> > > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
> > >
> > > Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> > > jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought Epstein's and Robertson's paper, "The search engine
> manipulation
> > effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections", was
> > very interesting as well:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548
> >
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> >
> > > Well the chances of me being firebombed while on vacation in the states
> > are
> > > probably higher than me being firebombed for editing Wikipedia, but
> that
> > > still doesn't mean we need to worry about changing the wiki model. I
> > guess
> > > I have lost the thread of your point entirely now.
> >
> >
> >
> > To be honest, I don't think you had ever gotten hold of it in the first
> > place. To me, you seem to live in a very sheltered and naive world.
> >
> > If we have reports of Wikipedians being tortured in Azerbaijan (and there
> > seems to have been some truth to these reports, as the sysop named in
> them
> > was globally blocked by the WMF a short while later[1]), you should be
> able
> > to understand that it is not quite as easy to live the wiki way there as
> it
> > is in your country, and that some of the assumptions you have formed
> based
> > on your own experiences of the wiki model may not hold in other locales.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Irada=12421543=7322889
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Board nominees

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Hi Pine,

I'm on my phone now and can't reply in detail, but it is my pleasure to
write that we're in the very final stages of the process and an
announcement early in January should be made.

Best,

Dariusz
Hi Board folks and Boryana,

Separate from the discussions about Doc James, can we get an update on the
appointment of new members?

Thanks,
Pine
On Sep 25, 2015 5:04 PM, "Boryana Dineva"  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> As you may have heard, I joined the Wikimedia Foundation last Monday as
the
> VP of Human Resources. I am so excited to be here and help to the best of
> my abilities.
>
> One of the projects that I am currently focusing on is adding two members
> to our board of trustees. I wanted to reach out to you and ask you to
> nominate candidates that you think should be considered.
>
> I am attaching a role description that will provide more insight into what
> the ideal candidates for these two board slots would be. If someone you
> know comes to mind, please send the name of the candidate including some
> information regarding why you think they would be great. Also let me know
> if you know that person is interested in the position and can afford the
> time commitment the role will require or if it’s someone you think may be
> great but are unsure if they are interested or would have time to commit.
>
> Please email nominations to board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org by next
> Wednesday, Sept 30th. I understand that this is a short notice and not
much
> time to nominate, but we need to find someone that can start in Nov and we
> need to contact, screen, interview, etc before then.
>
> Thank you in advance for your nominations and have a wonderful weekend!
>
> Warmest regards,
> Boryana
> ___
> 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
New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to the first four organizations to receive Simple Annual Plan Grants!

[Sam Klein]

Thank you Winifred - very good to see this has taken off.   SJ

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Winifred Olliff 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia colleagues:
>
> In response to feedback about the grants process
> <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Outcomes
> >
> that identified a gap in support for organizations and groups with annual
> plans that are not part of the FDC process
> , we on the WMF's Community
> Resources Team created a new pilot process for Simple Annual Plan Grants
> . These grants are for
> groups and organizations that need funds for operating and program expenses
> up to US$100K (or its equivalent in another currency).
>
> This process has been developed in partnership with a committee of eight
> volunteers ,
> who make recommendations about each grant application, which are then
> approved by WMF staff. I would like to recognize the outstanding work of
> our inaugural committee: Addis Wang, Anders Wennersten, Kiril Simeonovski,
> Kirill Lokshin, Ido Ivri, Nataliia Tymkiv, Pete Ekman, and Sydney Poore.
> Besides producing four quality recommendations this month (found on the
> discussion pages of the four applications
> ),
> they've done invaluable work to define how this new funding option will
> work, and offered constructive and supportive feedback to the applicants.
>
> I also want to recognize and congratulate our first four grantees:
> Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Eesti, Wikimedia Espana, and Shared
> Knowledge (user group in Macedonia). Each grantee did an outstanding job
> engaging during every phase of the grants process, and we are confident
> that each is preparing for an amazing year in 2016. Many thanks to all of
> the dedicated volunteers and staff at each organization that made these
> quality applications happen, including Bojan Jankuloski, Jan Loužek, Kiril
> Simeonevski, Kaarel Vaidla, Luis Ulzurrun, Santiago Navarro, Vojtěch Dostál
> and the volunteer boards and supportive community members at each of these
> organizations.
>
> Finally, thank you to our colleagues Janice Tud, Siko Bouterse, Stephen
> LaPorte, and the WMF finance team, for supporting these grantees behind the
> scenes. Thanks to Katy Love, Kacie Harold, and the entire Community
> Resources Team, past and current Funds Dissemination Committee members,
> current and past APG applicants, and particularly Ravishankar
> Ayyakkannu, for sharing their ideas and experiences leading up to this
> idea. Special thanks also to Tony Souter and Bence Damokos for their
> substantial feedback during the early phases of the pilot's development.
>
> Are you interested in learning more about how the new funding option could
> work for your group or organization? Please Email me to start a discussion
> about your organization's application, and read more about how to apply
> .
> Applications will be accepted throughout 2016.
>
> Best wishes and congratulations to all our colleagues who received grants
> in 2015, or helped to improve the grants process!
>
> Winifred
>
> Helpful links for Simple Annual Plan Grants:
> *Apply here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility
> *About the program:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About
> *Committee: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee
>
> --
> Winifred Olliff
> Program Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Obsessed with secrecy?

[Pete Forsyth]

Dear Adam,

Here is a sort of meta-request: could you please identify your position at
Wikimedia?

I will make this suggestion on the page, as one of the very low-hanging
fruit items that will make a big difference: if Wikimedia staff could make
a regular practice of listing info like their title, and stuff like user
page and contact info as appropriate, that would make it much easier to
understand and make sense of the huge amount of information coming from
various channels.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Adam Wight  wrote:

> There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency and
> accountability to the broader community.  Please help identify our
> shortcomings by contributing to this page:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Transparency_Gap
>
> -Adam
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Obsessed with secrecy?

[Adam Wight]

There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency and
accountability to the broader community.  Please help identify our
shortcomings by contributing to this page:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Transparency_Gap

-Adam
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Comet styles]

Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
"false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
truth..

On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin  wrote:
> Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
> filling in a few more details.
>
> Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
> the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
> for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
> way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> with the fallout of that decision.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
>> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
>> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
>> page, I have copied his comment below:
>>
>> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
>> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
>> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
>> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
>> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
>> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
>> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
>> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
>> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
>> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
>> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
>> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
>> December 2015 (UTC)"
>>
>> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
>> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
>> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
>> aware of it..
>>
>> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
>> should be circulated promptly.
>>
>> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>>
>> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki  wrote:
>> > The removal is not transparent at all.
>> >
>> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
>> > different.
>> >
>> > Very disappointing.
>> >
>> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
>> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
>> >> > least
>> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
>> >> > able
>> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
>> >> > without
>> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
>> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
>> simple
>> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
>> provide
>> >>
>> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
>> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
>> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
>> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
>> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
>> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
>> >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
>> >> transparent.
>> >>
>> >> best,
>> >> rupert
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> >> New messages to: 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
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Obsessed with secrecy?

[Pete Forsyth]

Many thanks Adam! A worthy effort, to be sure. I'll visit and dive in some
time tomorrow.

Pete
[[User: Peteforsyth]]
On Dec 29, 2015 3:13 PM, "Adam Wight"  wrote:

> Pete, thanks for asking, and for your ever toughtful voice.
>
> About my wiki edits:  In my volunteer time, I'm a lurker, hack translator,
> fringe developer, and sometimes say obnoxious things on mailing lists or in
> this case on metawiki.
>
> About my staff position: I've sent this email from my staff account as part
> of my duties to care for the organization that pays for my living, the
> WMF.  I'm a 75%-time employee in the Fundraising Tech team, currently in
> the sheepdog or ill-named "tech lead" role.  Great job, aside from the
> hierarchical corporate structure that I oppose.
>
> I'm looking forward to the sunshine...
>
> Love,
> Adam Roses Wight
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Adamw
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Adam,
> >
> > Here is a sort of meta-request: could you please identify your position
> at
> > Wikimedia?
> >
> > I will make this suggestion on the page, as one of the very low-hanging
> > fruit items that will make a big difference: if Wikimedia staff could
> make
> > a regular practice of listing info like their title, and stuff like user
> > page and contact info as appropriate, that would make it much easier to
> > understand and make sense of the huge amount of information coming from
> > various channels.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Adam Wight 
> wrote:
> >
> > > There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency and
> > > accountability to the broader community.  Please help identify our
> > > shortcomings by contributing to this page:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Transparency_Gap
> > >
> > > -Adam
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Craig Franklin]

Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
filling in a few more details.

Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
with the fallout of that decision.

Cheers,
Craig

On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad  wrote:

> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> page, I have copied his comment below:
>
> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> aware of it..
>
> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> should be circulated promptly.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>
> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki  wrote:
> > The removal is not transparent at all.
> >
> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.
> >
> > Very disappointing.
> >
> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
> >> > least
> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
> >> > able
> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
> >> > without
> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
> simple
> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
> provide
> >>
> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
> >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
> >> transparent.
> >>
> >> best,
> >> rupert
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to the first four organizations to receive Simple Annual Plan Grants!

[ido ivri]

...And thank you Winifred, for working tirelessly to facilitate this
process, and overcome the difficulties of having to coordinate 8 different
timezones, as well as improving the S-APG process on-the-fly. Remarkable!

I look forward to participating in the next cycle ;)

Happy holidays,

-- 
-Ido

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary,
and those who don't."
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to the first four organizations to receive Simple Annual Plan Grants!

[Tanweer Morshed]

Congratulations to the grantees and the committee members, who have helped
throughout the process!


Regards
Tanweer

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:30 AM, ido ivri  wrote:

> ...And thank you Winifred, for working tirelessly to facilitate this
> process, and overcome the difficulties of having to coordinate 8 different
> timezones, as well as improving the S-APG process on-the-fly. Remarkable!
>
> I look forward to participating in the next cycle ;)
>
> Happy holidays,
>
> --
> -Ido
>
> "There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary,
> and those who don't."
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Regards,
Tanweer Morshed
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Pine W]

I am not so ready to throw stones (: Perhaps because I have had one-on-one
conversations with a number of people involved in this situation, and I
would like to believe that they are all good people.

Reports that are rushed can lead to mistaken conclusions. I'd rather get a
comprehensive report than a rushed one. I do expect an explanation, soon,
and I expect it will be provided with the kind of integrity and
professionalism that I would hope everyone involved in this situation has.

Pine

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Comet styles 
wrote:

> Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
> "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
> connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
> truth..
>
> On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin  wrote:
> > Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
> > filling in a few more details.
> >
> > Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> > emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> > awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> > this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
> > the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> > speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
> > for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> > explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
> > way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to
> deal
> > with the fallout of that decision.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> >> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> >> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
> >> page, I have copied his comment below:
> >>
> >> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
> >> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
> >> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
> >> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
> >> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
> >> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
> >> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
> >> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
> >> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
> >> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
> >> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
> >> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
> >> December 2015 (UTC)"
> >>
> >> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
> >> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
> >> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
> >> aware of it..
> >>
> >> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
> >> should be circulated promptly.
> >>
> >> Newyorkbrad/IBM
> >>
> >> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki  wrote:
> >> > The removal is not transparent at all.
> >> >
> >> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
> >> > different.
> >> >
> >> > Very disappointing.
> >> >
> >> >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
> >> >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself,
> at
> >> >> > least
> >> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to
> be
> >> >> > able
> >> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> >> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
> >> >> > without
> >> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
> >> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
> >> simple
> >> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
> >> provide
> >> >>
> >> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
> >> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
> >> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
> >> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
> >> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
> >> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
> >> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Emmanuel Engelhart]

Dear Patricio, Dear Board members

On 29.12.2015 00:29, Patricio Lorente wrote:
> Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of the
> Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
> immediately.

This is not how a democratic system works. James' legitimacy and power
came from the community, only the community should be in position to
take it back. If he broke a rule, made a fault, this should be examined
by a third part. Anyway, this should never be the duty of board members
to judge each others.

Emmanuel

-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AWB & Ubuntu: Can really someone help?

[Petr Kadlec]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> AWB is made in C#.
>
> C# runs in .NET.
>
> .NET is like a virtual machine to abstract the layer of the operating
> system.
>
> .NET runs in Windows doesn't run in Linux based OS.
>

Not really. Apart from Mono, we have .NET Core 
now. (However, I’m not saying AWB will run under either of those options or
even that it would be easy to make it work there.)

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Chris Keating]

On 29 Dec 2015 01:17, "Todd Allen"  wrote:
>
> Even if there are legal reasons that disclosure is not possible, a simple
> statement to that effect ("For legal reasons, we cannot provide additional
> information") should be at the very least forthcoming.
>
> If the removal was "not for cause", which apparently is allowed, that
> should be explicitly stated as well.

I think it's probably likely there will be a limit on how much we can know.

If James was removed because of some serious disagreement with the rest of
the Board on an important issue, then the issue itself might mean WMF has
duties of confidentiality. This would be true for instance in almost any
issue connected with WMF staff, for instance.

If (much less likely ) it related to James's  personal conduct then WMF
continues to have a duty of care towards him  (and also must avoid defaming
him).

And finally, all involved will doubtless be trying to resolve whatever the
underlying problem,which is probably very difficult for all concerned - and
trying to avoid further provocation or anguish by saying things in public.

Regards,

Chris




> On Dec 28, 2015 5:45 PM, "Steven Zhang"  wrote:
>
> > Quite surprised by this action, it does indeed seem unprecedented and I
> > would hope the board would release a statement as to why this decision
was
> > made. Unless there are legal reasons that mean the board cannot disclose
> > why, I would think that an explanation should be provided.
> >
> > Steve Crossin
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 29 Dec 2015, at 11:32 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> > >
> > > I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be written, a
resolution
> > > explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the
> > board
> > > is written and passed.  If there are legal reasons that mean that his
> > > departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be
noted -
> > > and I hope they're particularly strong reasons.  Without looking up
the
> > > vote count in the last election: James has the trust of a huge
segment of
> > > the community, and also has a much stronger sense of direction in how
WMF
> > > should be steered than many of our trustees have in the past.  His
sudden
> > > removal (the power mechanism I've cobbled together to have my laptop
> > > functional today is hilarious) without further explanation looks way
too
> > > much like one of only three directly elected trustees spoke up too
openly
> > > in a way that wasn't welcomed about the directions he thought
Wikimedia
> > > should go - even though he literally published a platform before he
was
> > > elected.  The sudden removal of a very well respected community
elected
> > > trustee has at least the appearance of a board that may not want to be
> > > responsive to those who literally create it's only valuable asset.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > KG
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tito Dutta 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Add me as well.
> > >> Eager to know what happened.
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> New messages to: 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
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Isarra Yos]

On 29/12/15 07:37, MZMcBride wrote:

Right, that part isn't surprising. But discounting the unsurprising vote,
it was a nearly unanimous decision (8 to 1). I have a good deal of respect
for many of the current Board of Trustees members and I have no doubt that
all of them understand and appreciate the gravity of removing a colleague.
This wasn't a close vote and to me that says quite a bit.


It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. 
And for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we 
should also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, 
or in the board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not 
knowing just means there's no indication what to trust.


-I

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AWB & Ubuntu: Can really someone help?

[Ilario Valdelli]

On 29.12.2015 10:10, Petr Kadlec wrote:

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:


AWB is made in C#.

C# runs in .NET.

.NET is like a virtual machine to abstract the layer of the operating
system.

.NET runs in Windows doesn't run in Linux based OS.


Not really. Apart from Mono, we have .NET Core 
now. (However, I’m not saying AWB will run under either of those options or
even that it would be easy to make it work there.)

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



I have read that AWB is created using Microsoft Visual C#.

The big question mark is to know if something created on a .NET using 
the original framework can run in .NET Core.


But it could interesting to ask to the developers if they would migrate 
it and probably solving the big discrepancy and the big "operating 
system divide".


Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gnangarra]

>
> This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> those from Kazakhstan.


​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation  is so important, ​

​because the person receiving the information must able to make their own
assessment​ of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a significant
selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the quality,
integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
projects.

On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what?
>
> If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is no
> plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only in
> sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many
> important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it that
> it is because of a lack of sources..
>
> Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular subjects. We
> do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable source)
> indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
> international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
>
> When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we effectively
> improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they found.
> Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means that
> more information is linked for people who visit a library. When awards are
> known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from multiple
> Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links are
> exposed.
>
> When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a better
> job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
> Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that manipulation
> is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data on
> their hobby horse.
>
> Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources are
> used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata, then in
> my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first place.
> It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of information we
> created, a web that is of a NPOV.
>
> Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many places. As
> the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> those from Kazakhstan.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne 
> wrote:
>
> > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> >
> >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> when
> >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> shouldn't
> >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
> >> will
> >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is
> why
> >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just block
> >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of
> the
> >> Kazakh people.
> >>
> >>
> > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what it
> > showed them in their feeds.
> >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> >
> > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of people.
> > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> large
> > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap, vote
> > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
> >
> > Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> > jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

http://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/ainl_guidelines_use_of_force.pdf

On 29 December 2015 at 13:30, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> citation needed
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> > > those from Kazakhstan.
> >
> >
> > ​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation  is so important, ​
> >
> > ​because the person receiving the information must able to make their own
> > assessment​ of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a
> significant
> > selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the quality,
> > integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
> > projects.
> >
> > On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what?
> > >
> > > If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is
> > no
> > > plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only
> in
> > > sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many
> > > important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it
> > that
> > > it is because of a lack of sources..
> > >
> > > Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular subjects.
> > We
> > > do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable
> source)
> > > indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
> > > international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
> > >
> > > When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we
> effectively
> > > improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they
> found.
> > > Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means that
> > > more information is linked for people who visit a library. When awards
> > are
> > > known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from multiple
> > > Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links
> are
> > > exposed.
> > >
> > > When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a
> > better
> > > job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
> > > Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that
> > manipulation
> > > is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data on
> > > their hobby horse.
> > >
> > > Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources are
> > > used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata,
> then
> > in
> > > my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first
> > place.
> > > It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of information
> > we
> > > created, a web that is of a NPOV.
> > >
> > > Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many
> places.
> > As
> > > the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> > > manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> > > those from Kazakhstan.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> > > when
> > > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > > shouldn't
> > > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good
> Faith"
> > > >> will
> > > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which
> is
> > > why
> > > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> > block
> > > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that
> of
> > > the
> > > >> Kazakh people.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by
> what
> > it
> > > > showed them in their feeds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> > > >
> > > > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > > > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of
> > people.
> > > > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> > > large
> > > > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap,
> > vote
> > > > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[George Herbert]

We need an attorney, but...

It looks like Bylaws IV sect 7 *could* override 617.0808 (1) via 617.0808 (2) 
which says that a IRS 501 (c) organization's bylaws can provide procedures 
(presumably different than 617.0808 (1) ), but says that you may include 
617.0808 (1), and WMF does, explicitly.

So... On first impression, the Bylaws self-contradict by including 617.0808 (1) 
explicitly after having provided a non-617.0808 (1) compliant mechanism.

"Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the 
Trustees then in office...", without regard for 617.0808 (1) (a) 2. Which 
requires that directors elected by the members be removed by majority vote of 
the members.

So... On first impression, the Bylaws have a glitch and the Board action may 
therefore arguably be illegal and potentially void.  There may be applicable 
case law on standards for de-glitchifying contradictions like this, or it might 
be case specific and requiring litigation.

That is not to say there was no possible good reason or justification, the real 
crux of the matter.  On the matter of community concern over trust I am as 
ill-informed right now as everyone else not on the Board.

I am not an attorney.

I do think the Foundation legal staff need to review and some fix to this needs 
to be made to the Bylaws for the future, either overriding 617.0808 (1) (a) 2. 
explicitly or by making community vote explicitly the recall mechanism for 
trustees elected by the community.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
> they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
> elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
> law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
> by referendum in this case.
> 
> I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
> On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hoi,
>>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
>> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
>> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>> 
>>> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>> 
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>> 
>>>   - how can this take place
>>>   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>>   future,
>>>   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>>   board
>>> 
>>> The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
>>> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
>> next
>>> steps in the replacing our representative.
>>> 
>>> Gn.
>>> 
 On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
 
 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
 
 
> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
>>> And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
 should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
>> in
 the
> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
>> just
> means there's no indication what to trust.
 
 
 I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
>> in
 him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
 
 Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
 community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
>> way
 to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
>>> mandatory
 that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
 exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
 later.
 
 And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
 community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
 everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
 disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
>> the
 authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
 
 Th.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Marcin Cieslak]

On 2015-12-29, George Herbert  wrote:
> I do think the Foundation legal staff need to review and some fix to
> this needs to be made to the Bylaws for the future, either overriding
> 617.0808 (1) (a) 2. explicitly or by making community vote explicitly
> the recall mechanism for trustees elected by the community.

I think that bylaws are pretty coherent with the statute; what
might need an adjustment is the following wording from the resolution
appointing new members:

> Resolved, that the Board of Trustees ("Board") approves and authorize the 
> election of (...)
to fill the Community-selected seats on the Board for the coming term.

> Resolved, that (...) is/are appointed to the Board, for a term of two
> years beginning on X, and continuing until Y until approval and
> authorization of the selection process in Z to fill these positions,
> whichever comes first.

Section 1 is clearly appropriate for the elected board members.
Section 2 is only appropriate for the appointed board members.
Even the bylaws do not use the term "appointment" when referring
to the board member selected according to the article IV,
section 3, subsections (C) and (D). The appointment comes
into play when there is a vacancy ("appoint the candidate receiving the
next most votes").

Saper



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
That is a circular argument.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 29 December 2015 at 13:33, Gnangarra  wrote:

> no I agree quality is more than just the sources, but without sources
> quality cannot be achieved
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 20:29, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You do not get the point or you deliberately distort it. The point is
> that
> > quality is not sources. Quality is more than that.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 29 December 2015 at 13:27, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect
> as
> > > > those from Kazakhstan.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation  is so important, ​
> > >
> > > ​because the person receiving the information must able to make their
> own
> > > assessment​ of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a
> > significant
> > > selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the
> quality,
> > > integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then
> what?
> > > >
> > > > If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there
> is
> > > no
> > > > plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not
> only
> > in
> > > > sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right.
> Many
> > > > important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it
> > > that
> > > > it is because of a lack of sources..
> > > >
> > > > Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular
> subjects.
> > > We
> > > > do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable
> > source)
> > > > indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
> > > > international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
> > > >
> > > > When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we
> > effectively
> > > > improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they
> > found.
> > > > Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means
> that
> > > > more information is linked for people who visit a library. When
> awards
> > > are
> > > > known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from
> multiple
> > > > Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links
> > are
> > > > exposed.
> > > >
> > > > When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a
> > > better
> > > > job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
> > > > Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that
> > > manipulation
> > > > is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data
> on
> > > > their hobby horse.
> > > >
> > > > Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources
> are
> > > > used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata,
> > then
> > > in
> > > > my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first
> > > place.
> > > > It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of
> information
> > > we
> > > > created, a web that is of a NPOV.
> > > >
> > > > Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many
> > places.
> > > As
> > > > the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> > > > manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But
> do
> > > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect
> as
> > > > those from Kazakhstan.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide
> it
> > > > when
> > > > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good
> > Faith"
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which
> > is
> > > > why
> > > > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> > > block
> > > > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >> Kazakh people.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by
> > what
> > > it
> > > > > showed them in their feeds.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lilburne 
wrote:

> On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
>
>> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it when
>> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we shouldn't
>> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
>> will
>> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is why
>> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just block
>> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of the
>> Kazakh people.
>>
>>
> Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what it
> showed them in their feeds.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
>
> They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of people.
> You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a large
> population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap, vote
> one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
>
> Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> jackpot^H^H^Hboot.



I thought Epstein's and Robertson's paper, "The search engine manipulation
effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections", was
very interesting as well:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract


On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Well the chances of me being firebombed while on vacation in the states are
> probably higher than me being firebombed for editing Wikipedia, but that
> still doesn't mean we need to worry about changing the wiki model. I guess
> I have lost the thread of your point entirely now.



To be honest, I don't think you had ever gotten hold of it in the first
place. To me, you seem to live in a very sheltered and naive world.

If we have reports of Wikipedians being tortured in Azerbaijan (and there
seems to have been some truth to these reports, as the sysop named in them
was globally blocked by the WMF a short while later[1]), you should be able
to understand that it is not quite as easy to live the wiki way there as it
is in your country, and that some of the assumptions you have formed based
on your own experiences of the wiki model may not hold in other locales.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Irada=12421543=7322889
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Thomas Goldammer]

2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :


> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in the
> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing just
> means there's no indication what to trust.


I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than in
him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)

Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no way
to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be mandatory
that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
later.

And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines the
authority of the community over those seats on the Board.

Th.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Gnangarra]

there are bigger questions than why like;

   - how can this take place
   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
   future,
   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
   board

 The Florida statute(
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
place given the action of the board why are they also determining the next
steps in the replacing our representative.

Gn.

On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:

> 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
>
>
> > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. And
> > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> should
> > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in
> the
> > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing just
> > means there's no indication what to trust.
>
>
> I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than in
> him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
>
> Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no way
> to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be mandatory
> that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> later.
>
> And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines the
> authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
>
> Th.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[MZMcBride]

Nathan wrote:
>In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
>lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner.

The removal resolution was approved on December 28, 2015, according to
wikimediafoundation.org. Unlike most Board resolutions, it was publicly
posted the same day. The posted Board resolution was accompanied by two
separate e-mails to this public mailing list (one from James, one from
Patricio) on the same day. What kind of transparency and timeliness are
you looking for, exactly? What level of explanation would be satisfactory?

>Why not let them make their own excuses?

Excuses for what, exactly? The Chair of the Board announced the decision
and other remaining Board members have chosen not to publicly discuss the
issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least
in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able
to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without
cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
a fuller explanation of the removal. It seems most prudent to wait for
that. While this will sound trite, perhaps we could extend a little good
faith to the members of the Board, most of whom are long-time trusted and
respected Wikimedians and all of whom take their role seriously.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 to be held in Montréal in Canada

[Stuart Prior]

Congratulations Montreal!

S

On 22 December 2015 at 10:53, James Forrester  wrote:

> All,
>
> I am delighted to announce on behalf of the Wikimania Committee that
> Wikimania, the annual Wikimedia community conference, will be held in
> Montréal, Canada in 8–13 August 2017.
>
> 2017 will be the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montréal as a city,
> which will make it a great time for a cultural event to take place. Despite
> being our twelfth Wikimania, Montréal will be our first in a Francophone
> location, and the Montréal team is working with French-speaking community
> members worldwide to make Montréal a success. WikiFranca and Wikimedia
> Canada will be supporting the local team led by Marc-André Pelletier
> (User:Coren). A press release/announcement from them will be forthcoming.
> You can contact the team via e-mail at team{at}wikimania.ca.
>
> For 2017, we decided to investigate and vet a revised earlier proposal for
> Montréal to host while the selection process itself is being reviewed.
> Selecting and confirming the venue with more lead time ensures cost savings
> in hotel prices and contract terms; affords us favourable dates and rates;
> and allows participation and overlap with current and future teams.
>
> Please join us in congratulating the team, and working to support them in
> holding an excellent conference.
>
> Yours,
>
> James D. Forrester
> Chair, Wikimania Committee
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
*Stuart Prior*
*Project Coordinator*
*Wikimedia UK*
+44 20 7065 0990

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

citation needed

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> > those from Kazakhstan.
>
>
> ​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation  is so important, ​
>
> ​because the person receiving the information must able to make their own
> assessment​ of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a significant
> selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the quality,
> integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
> projects.
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what?
> >
> > If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is
> no
> > plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only in
> > sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many
> > important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it
> that
> > it is because of a lack of sources..
> >
> > Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular subjects.
> We
> > do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable source)
> > indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
> > international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
> >
> > When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we effectively
> > improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they found.
> > Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means that
> > more information is linked for people who visit a library. When awards
> are
> > known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from multiple
> > Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links are
> > exposed.
> >
> > When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a
> better
> > job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
> > Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that
> manipulation
> > is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data on
> > their hobby horse.
> >
> > Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources are
> > used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata, then
> in
> > my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first
> place.
> > It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of information
> we
> > created, a web that is of a NPOV.
> >
> > Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many places.
> As
> > the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> > manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> > those from Kazakhstan.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > >
> > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> > when
> > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > shouldn't
> > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
> > >> will
> > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is
> > why
> > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> block
> > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of
> > the
> > >> Kazakh people.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what
> it
> > > showed them in their feeds.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> > >
> > > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of
> people.
> > > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> > large
> > > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap,
> vote
> > > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
> > >
> > > Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> > > jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

I don't think all the legal speculation here is very helpful. I'm sure the
Board or someone else will sagely advise us that the board is
self-governing and self-perpetuating and no other legal authority is
necessary.

In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner. Why
not let them make their own excuses? If indeed there is some
confidentiality issue, let them argue that the Wikimedia community should
be satisfied with never knowing the salient details.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Todd Allen]

It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
by referendum in this case.

I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
wrote:

> Hoi,
>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > there are bigger questions than why like;
> >
> >- how can this take place
> >- how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
> >future,
> >- what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
> >board
> >
> >  The Florida statute(
> > https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> > to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
> other
> > organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> > director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
> > or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
> > place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
> next
> > steps in the replacing our representative.
> >
> > Gn.
> >
> > On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
> >
> > > 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> > >
> > >
> > > > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
> > And
> > > > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> > > should
> > > > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
> in
> > > the
> > > > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
> just
> > > > means there's no indication what to trust.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
> in
> > > him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> > >
> > > Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> > > community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
> way
> > > to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
> > mandatory
> > > that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> > > exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> > > later.
> > >
> > > And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> > > community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> > > everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> > > disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
> the
> > > authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> > >
> > > Th.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Chris Keating]

>
> BTW, it's more "community selected" than "community representative".
There's an important distinction there.
>

Quite - all WMF trustees have identical responsibilities, regardless of
which method of selection resulted in them being on the board.

For instance Alice and Phoebe both served on the Board under via different
routes, they didn't end up representing different people as a result.

> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 29 Dec 2015, at 13:19, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
> > they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
> > elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
> > law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would
presume
> > by referendum in this case.
> >
> > I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
> > On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community
chosen
> >> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It
is
> >> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more
complicated.
> >> Thanks,
> >>  GerardM
> >>
> >> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >>
> >>> there are bigger questions than why like;
> >>>
> >>>   - how can this take place
> >>>   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in
the
> >>>   future,
> >>>   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
> >>>   board
> >>>
> >>> The Florida statute(
> >>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> >>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
> >> other
> >>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> >>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter,
unit,
> >>> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the
first
> >>> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
> >> next
> >>> steps in the replacing our representative.
> >>>
> >>> Gn.
> >>>
> >>> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer 
wrote:
> >>>
>  2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> 
> 
> > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the
context.
> >>> And
> > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
>  should
> > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
> >> in
>  the
> > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
> >> just
> > means there's no indication what to trust.
> 
> 
>  I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members
than
> >> in
>  him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> 
>  Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
>  community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
> >> way
>  to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
> >>> mandatory
>  that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to
avoid
>  exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or
more)
>  later.
> 
>  And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
>  community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into
that,
>  everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
>  disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
> >> the
>  authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> 
>  Th.
>  ___
>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>  New messages to: 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
> >>> New messages to: 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
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gnangarra]

no I agree quality is more than just the sources, but without sources
quality cannot be achieved

On 29 December 2015 at 20:29, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You do not get the point or you deliberately distort it. The point is that
> quality is not sources. Quality is more than that.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 13:27, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> > > those from Kazakhstan.
> >
> >
> > ​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation  is so important, ​
> >
> > ​because the person receiving the information must able to make their own
> > assessment​ of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a
> significant
> > selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the quality,
> > integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
> > projects.
> >
> > On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what?
> > >
> > > If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is
> > no
> > > plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only
> in
> > > sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many
> > > important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it
> > that
> > > it is because of a lack of sources..
> > >
> > > Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular subjects.
> > We
> > > do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable
> source)
> > > indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
> > > international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
> > >
> > > When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we
> effectively
> > > improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they
> found.
> > > Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means that
> > > more information is linked for people who visit a library. When awards
> > are
> > > known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from multiple
> > > Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links
> are
> > > exposed.
> > >
> > > When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a
> > better
> > > job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
> > > Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that
> > manipulation
> > > is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data on
> > > their hobby horse.
> > >
> > > Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources are
> > > used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata,
> then
> > in
> > > my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first
> > place.
> > > It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of information
> > we
> > > created, a web that is of a NPOV.
> > >
> > > Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many
> places.
> > As
> > > the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> > > manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> > > those from Kazakhstan.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it
> > > when
> > > >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> > > shouldn't
> > > >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good
> Faith"
> > > >> will
> > > >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which
> is
> > > why
> > > >> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
> > block
> > > >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that
> of
> > > the
> > > >> Kazakh people.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by
> what
> > it
> > > > showed them in their feeds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
> > > >
> > > > They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> > > > (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of
> > people.
> > > > You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
> > > large
> > > > population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap,
> > vote
> > > > one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
> > > >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
 it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:

> there are bigger questions than why like;
>
>- how can this take place
>- how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>future,
>- what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>board
>
>  The Florida statute(
> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other
> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the next
> steps in the replacing our representative.
>
> Gn.
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
>
> > 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> >
> >
> > > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
> And
> > > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> > should
> > > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in
> > the
> > > board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing just
> > > means there's no indication what to trust.
> >
> >
> > I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than in
> > him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> >
> > Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> > community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no way
> > to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
> mandatory
> > that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> > exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> > later.
> >
> > And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> > community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> > everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> > disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines the
> > authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> >
> > Th.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[George Herbert]

Bylaws IV Sect 3. (C) says that they're elected by the community then approved 
by the board subject to other requirements.

Starting (first sentence) with "Three Trustees will be selected from candidates 
approved through community voting." would seem to make them subject to 617.0808 
(1) (a) 2. (Removal by members vote) even if there's an additional step in 
approval joining the board.

I am not an attorney.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 5:27 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
> From what I understand, the community elections don't directly elect/appoint 
> WMF board members, but essentially provide a recommendation that the WMF 
> board then approves. Have a look at the text of:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_appointment_2015
>  
> 
> and the phrasing at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015#Process 
> 
> specifically, "The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be 
> recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment."
> 
> So the "class" here would be the WMF board, not the community.
> 
> But, of course, IANAL.
> 
> BTW, it's more "community selected" than "community representative". There's 
> an important distinction there.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
>> On 29 Dec 2015, at 13:19, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
>> they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
>> elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
>> law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
>> by referendum in this case.
>> 
>> I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
>> On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hoi,
>>>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
>>> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
>>> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>> 
 On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
 
 there are bigger questions than why like;
 
  - how can this take place
  - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
  future,
  - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
  board
 
 The Florida statute(
 https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
 to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>>> other
 organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
 director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
 or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
 place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
>>> next
 steps in the replacing our representative.
 
 Gn.
 
> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
> 
> 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> 
> 
>> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
 And
>> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
> should
>> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
>>> in
> the
>> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
>>> just
>> means there's no indication what to trust.
> 
> 
> I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
>>> in
> him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
> 
> Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
> community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
>>> way
> to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
 mandatory
> that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
> exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
> later.
> 
> And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
> community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
> everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
> disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
>>> the
> authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
> 
> Th.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what?

If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is no
plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only in
sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many
important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it that
it is because of a lack of sources..

Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular subjects. We
do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable source)
indicates that all USA police forces are not in compliance with
international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??

When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we effectively
improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with a list of issues they found.
Tom checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means that
more information is linked for people who visit a library. When awards are
known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from multiple
Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links are
exposed.

When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a better
job. When Facebook invites companies to manipulate people, it is why
Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that manipulation
is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data on
their hobby horse.

Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources are
used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata, then in
my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was possible in the first place.
It was not because of sources, it was because of the web of information we
created, a web that is of a NPOV.

Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many places. As
the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But do
remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
those from Kazakhstan.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne  wrote:

> On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
>
>> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it when
>> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we shouldn't
>> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"
>> will
>> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is why
>> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just block
>> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that of the
>> Kazakh people.
>>
>>
> Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by what it
> showed them in their feeds.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
>
> They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of people.
> You only need a small push in one direction or another to influence a large
> population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap, vote
> one way or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/facebooks-icky-psychology-experiment-is-actually-business-as-usual.html
>
> Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Michael Peel]

From what I understand, the community elections don't directly elect/appoint 
WMF board members, but essentially provide a recommendation that the WMF board 
then approves. Have a look at the text of:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_appointment_2015 

and the phrasing at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015#Process 

specifically, "The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be 
recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment."

So the "class" here would be the WMF board, not the community.

But, of course, IANAL.

BTW, it's more "community selected" than "community representative". There's an 
important distinction there.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 29 Dec 2015, at 13:19, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
> they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
> elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
> law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
> by referendum in this case.
> 
> I think we need to know if the Board considered this requirement.
> On Dec 29, 2015 5:33 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hoi,
>>  it is a great shitstorm Do remember that a community chosen
>> representative voted the other community chosen representative out. It is
>> not a case of he must be good, the others are bad. It is more complicated.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>> 
>> On 29 December 2015 at 13:19, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> 
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>> 
>>>   - how can this take place
>>>   - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>>   future,
>>>   - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>>   board
>>> 
>>> The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.  Do they even have ability to remove the person in the first
>>> place given the action of the board why are they also determining the
>> next
>>> steps in the replacing our representative.
>>> 
>>> Gn.
>>> 
>>> On 29 December 2015 at 19:53, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:
>>> 
 2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
 
 
> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context.
>>> And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we
 should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or
>> in
 the
> board, or have no bearing on either thing whatsoever. Not knowing
>> just
> means there's no indication what to trust.
 
 
 I'd rather lose the trust and confidence in those 8 Board members than
>> in
 him without knowing what was the cause for his disbarment. ;)
 
 Maybe the Board by-laws have to be changed, too. Throwing out a
 community-elected member like this, without providing a reason, is no
>> way
 to deal with the community who elected this member. It should be
>>> mandatory
 that the Board provides reasons together with the announcement to avoid
 exactly this kind of discussions and speculations, not a day (or more)
 later.
 
 And as for no-cause disbarments for community-elected members in a
 community-driven environment - uhm... I don't need to delve into that,
 everyone can see the problem. The Board should just not be allowed to
 disbar community-elected members without a cause, as that undermines
>> the
 authority of the community over those seats on the Board.
 
 Th.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 New messages to: 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
>>> New messages to: 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
>> New