Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andrea Zanni]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or
> perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page
> number into a full-blown reference.
>

Most of the time, I think your approach is good enough.
But please don't assume that there is a bijection between books ("works")
and ISBNs.
* not all books have ISBNs (ISBN has been widely used from 1970s)
* that ISBNs are *always* unique (publishers reuse them to save
money)(yeah, I know)
* you often have a different ISBN for the ebook, for the paperback, for the
hardcover, of the same book etc.
* right now, we don't really know how to consistenly works to their
different editions and translations.

I'm simply stating that the reason we don't have Wikidata full of book
records is a deep one.

Aubrey
___
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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Pete Forsyth]

On Jan 26, 2016 5:24 AM, "Magnus Manske" 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth 
wrote:
>



> If you have even minimum indications of "evil" WMF plans for Wikidata,
> please share them! Saying "I know nothing about their plans, therefore
they
> must be evil" doesn't really cut it.

Indeed, if that were what I was saying...that would be nuts!

I do not have an opinion on the quality (or moral value, for that matter!)
of whatever plans the senior leadership of WMF has around structured data,
search, discovery, knowledge engines, etc.

But I do find the secretive approach to planning problematic.

The plans may very well turn out to be good ones (as I said in my original
message). But that will not justify the level of secrecy we are seeing
lately.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

>
> >
> > Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged
in
> > problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
> >
> > I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from
that
> > perspective.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > ___
> > 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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Magnus Manske]

Be careful with that "obvious" word...

http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> don't
> > count)
>
>
>
> Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> published source.
>
> Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
> source", isn't it?[2]
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> ___
> 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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or
perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page
number into a full-blown reference.
On 26 Jan 2016 4:20 pm, "Andrea Zanni"  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >- It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
> book a
> >publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
> more
> >time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> > authors
> >they need sources in their own right..
> >
>
>
> Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
> Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
> it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
> publishing, publisher).
>
> What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
> often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
> catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
> Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
>
> I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> [1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
> Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
> local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
> ___
> 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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You write about your fear, uncertainty and doubt .. Why have us waste time
on it? Do something useful.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 January 2016 at 11:33, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Jan 26, 2016 5:24 AM, "Magnus Manske" 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
>
> 
>
> > If you have even minimum indications of "evil" WMF plans for Wikidata,
> > please share them! Saying "I know nothing about their plans, therefore
> they
> > must be evil" doesn't really cut it.
>
> Indeed, if that were what I was saying...that would be nuts!
>
> I do not have an opinion on the quality (or moral value, for that matter!)
> of whatever plans the senior leadership of WMF has around structured data,
> search, discovery, knowledge engines, etc.
>
> But I do find the secretive approach to planning problematic.
>
> The plans may very well turn out to be good ones (as I said in my original
> message). But that will not justify the level of secrecy we are seeing
> lately.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> >
> > >
> > > Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged
> in
> > > problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
> > >
> > > I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from
> that
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > ___
> > > 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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Andreas Kolbe]

Pete,


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally
> problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these
> threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all
> parties.
>
> However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people
> publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are
> several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic at
> the core:
> * Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
> citations)
> * Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all Internet
> forums
> * All blogs
> * YouTube
> * Facebook
> * The Internet itself
> * The printing press
>
> Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for people --
> even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we are to
> fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same
> standard to other platforms.
>


In many countries, people have a right to free speech: to voice opinions,
engage in speculation, and so on. I feel quite certain that we agree that
the right to free speech is a good thing to have.

But Wikipedia and Wikidata are not experiments in free speech. They are
designed to be reference works.

Wikipedia, in its early days, was faulted by Wikipedians – rightly so – for
publishing material that could not be traced to professionally published
sources, including much material that was plain wrong (crank theories
etc.). That was considered unacceptable for a reference work; hence the
requirement for references, the no-original-research rule, and all the rest
of it.



I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to
> paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an
> experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some
> instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion
> that Wikidata is problematic overall.
>



Perhaps we can agree that reliable sources are a useful part of a
crowdsourced reference project. The more citations Wikidata contains, the
more useful it will be. Citations make data provenance transparent to the
end user. They enable end users to verify, judge and correct the
information they're given, if they so desire.

Data provenance is all the more important if Wikidata content comes to be
spread far and wide, as seems possible, given major search engines'
involvement.

In my opinion, Wikidata's CC-0 licence undermines that, because it allows
re-users to cut the chain between the end user and the data's original
source.



That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not open
> to scrutiny.
>
> THAT, I believe, is a problem.
>



I agree with you that there appears to be an undue amount of secrecy.

Jimmy Wales said[1] over two weeks ago, in response to questions about the
Knight Foundation's Knowledge Engine grant, in the context of ousted board
member James Heilman's complaints about a lack of transparency,



"What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure
there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant
letter should be published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here,
so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as
possible."



That sounded reassuring. But to date neither the Knight Foundation grant
letter nor the Foundation's grant application have been published on Meta.

The fact that nothing has happened following Jimmy Wales' statement has
been discussed in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. As you probably
know, Jimmy Wales said there yesterday,



"Assurances"? Please don't make things up out of thin air. I've expressed
my opinion, but contrary to some people's fantasies, me expressing an
opinion doesn't have the force of law.



In the same discussion, a WMF staffer said last week that WMF staff would
be delighted to publish that documentation, but haven't been given leave to
do so.

That sounds to me like there is a continued intent to withhold the
documentation of this restricted grant from public view. I believe that is
a mistake.

If there is nothing objectionable in it, publication now will stop the
rumour mill. If there is something objectionable in it, then it is better
for that to come to light now, rather than six months or a year down the
line.




> Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged in
> problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
>
> I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from that
> perspective.
>


I agree. Thank you for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books
from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
the cited web page.

There is a difference between unreliable assertions and knowledge.
Wikimedia should be distributing knowledge. That's what the mission
statement says. Wikidata could take citation a bit more seriously.
On 26 Jan 2016 5:59 pm, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:

> That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in
> reference statements is harder
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Andrea Zanni" 
> Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >- It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
> book a
> >publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
> more
> >time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> > authors
> >they need sources in their own right..
> >
>
>
> Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
> Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
> it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
> publishing, publisher).
>
> What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
> often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
> catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
> Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
>
> I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> [1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
> Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
> local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
> ___
> 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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links
for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling
Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there
are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia.

The proof is in the pudding. For simple lists and links Wikidata is hands
down superior.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 January 2016 at 12:21, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Eh, wrong link ...
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
> >
> > On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the
> > way
> > > the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
> > > those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
> > > Thanks.,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
> > > [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/341GC2.jpg
> >
>
>
> Gerard,
>
> You say in your January 2016 blog post,
>
> 
>
> The article on the Spearman Medal is a case in point. This medal is
> conferred by the British Psychological Society to psychologists. There were
> 19 links and two were wrong. One link was to a soccer and one to a football
> player. The award is conferred since 1965 so there ought to be quite a
> number of red links
>
> With two sportsmen attributed to winning the Spearman Medal there was an
> error rate of 20%.
>
> 
>
> Looking at the current version of the [[Spearman Medal]] article,[1] last
> touched in August 2014 (i.e. well before your blog post), I find it
> contains 20 (not 19) blue links in its List of medal winners (along with a
> bunch of red links).
>
> Looking at the blue links, I find only one soccer/football player (Richard
> Crisp), not two. However, there is also a research climatologist
> specialising in viticulture (Gregory V. Jones).
>
> These two would seem quite obviously to be wrong, given that the Spearman
> Medal is given to psychologists. So I agree with you that at least two blue
> links lead to the wrong person.
>
> I don't agree with your percentage calculation: if 2 out of 20 blue links
> lead to the wrong person, that makes an error rate of 10% (not 20%).
>
> I note that only two of the names in the list have references. That's just
> as bad as Wikidata. :)
>
> The saving grace is that at least the article cites a British Psychological
> Society webpage in its lead where an official list of medal winners[2] is
> linked. Frankly, I would consider that page a better reference than the
> Wikipedia page. It's good to see that it outranks the Wikipedia page in
> search engines.
>
> Speaking more broadly, I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with you
> that Wikipedia quality leaves much to be desired. I have written plenty
> about Wikipedia's reliability problems.
>
> However, I consider the requirement for reliable sources to be a key factor
> in whatever quality improvement there has been in Wikipedia. Moreover, the
> presence of sources very often gives readers access to more reliable
> material than Wikipedia itself (as indeed is the case in the Spearman Medal
> article). That is useful.
>
> In my view, much of Wikipedia has been and continues to be substandard. But
> without references, Wikidata's reliability problems are likely to be even
> greater than those of Wikipedia.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spearman_Medal=620735680
> [2]
>
> http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/bps/history-psychology-centre/history-society/society-award-winners/spearman-medal/spearman-medal
> ___
> 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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Pete Forsyth]

On Jan 26, 2016 3:22 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
wrote:
> Thanks for the FUD.

"Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" are not the precise words I would choose,
but they fairly adequately describe how I feel about the WMF these days.

Of course, as a bit of jargon, FUD typically implies that somebody is
trying to use those emotions in a manipulative way.

All I can say to that isnope, not my intention.

> So where are your sources Pete?
First, the main point of my email was to challenge what I consider a poor
argument against Wikidata. That point is, IMO, the important one.

However, you're right: I did talk about my beliefs. I do believe there is a
problem to be considered; and I don't think I need to offer proof for what
my own beliefs are.

But, i agree, some substantiation is worthwhile. I consider the following
to be the most interesting published documents relating to these issues:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed

It is very clear that the WMF has big plans, and that we have only seen
parts of those plans. What those plans are, and whether they are good ones,
remains to be explored; but the opaqueness of the plans is itself a
problem. That is my point.

> When other plans exist, the WMF is not the party developing them. For
> instance: I am arguing for the use of Wikidata in links and redlinks. I
> have published about it and I welcome comments. I asked you personally and
> you were not even interested.

OK, this part is getting silly. You presented an idea to me in private that
is obviously a good idea. But, as I explained to you, your single-minded
interest in me expressing an opinion on it gave me pause. I explained to
you that you seemed more interested in setting me up to be a part of your
political point, than in actually having a discussion. So I declined to
discuss your idea.

This message seems to prove that my instincts were correct.

Pete

>
> On 26 January 2016 at 08:33, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in
the
> > most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted
back
> > to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
> >
> > Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is
fundamentally
> > problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> > correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these
> > threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all
> > parties.
> >
> > However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people
> > publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are
> > several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic
at
> > the core:
> > * Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
> > citations)
> > * Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all
Internet
> > forums
> > * All blogs
> > * YouTube
> > * Facebook
> > * The Internet itself
> > * The printing press
> >
> > Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for
people --
> > even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we
are to
> > fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same
> > standard to other platforms.
> >
> > I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to
> > paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an
> > experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some
> > instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion
> > that Wikidata is problematic overall.
> >
> > That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation
has
> > developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not
open
> > to scrutiny.
> >
> > THAT, I believe, is a problem.
> >
> > Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged
in
> > problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
> >
> > I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from
that
> > perspective.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > ___
> > 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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Magnus Manske]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the
> most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back
> to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
>
> Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally
> problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.)


Every statement on Wikidata /should/ be referenced, unless the statement
itself points to a reference (e.g. VIAF, images). However, at the moment,
this is not a requirement, as Wikidata is still in a steep growth phase.
Over the last few years, many statements were added by bots, which can
process e.g. Wikipedia, but would be hard pressed to find the original
reference for a statement.

Humans, bots, and tools increaingly add references to Wikidata statements;
I wouldn't be surprised if Wikidata starts requiring references within the
next few years on all (new) statements.


> I've found these
> threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all
> parties.
>
> However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people
> publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are
> several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic at
> the core:
> * Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
> citations)
> * Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all Internet
> forums
> * All blogs
> * YouTube
> * Facebook
> * The Internet itself
> * The printing press
>
> Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for people --
> even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we are to
> fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same
> standard to other platforms.
>
> I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to
> paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an
> experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some
> instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion
> that Wikidata is problematic overall.
>
> That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not open
> to scrutiny.
>
> THAT, I believe, is a problem.
>

Well, I sure hope WMF has big plans for Wikidata! But do you know of any
such plans that don't revolve around the usual suspects, such as
importing/linking to extisting datasets, or re-using Wikidata in
third-party sites and products?
For example, a "secret" plan along the lines of "company X wants to use
Wikidata, but they don't want to announce this publicly yet" would be
perfectly fine by me. Wikidata is CC-0; technically, no one needs to even
ask permission or link back.
I simply do not see any sinister, nefarious plan the WMF /could/ have for
Wikidata, given their long established policy of staying away from editing
contents.

If you have even minimum indications of "evil" WMF plans for Wikidata,
please share them! Saying "I know nothing about their plans, therefore they
must be evil" doesn't really cut it.

Cheers,
Magnus



>
> Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged in
> problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
>
> I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from that
> perspective.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Anthony, having sources is desired. The point is not that we do not want
them. We clearly do. My point is that it is not the only yardstick of
success and quality.

As I argued, Wikidata may be a tool to link links and red links properly.
It will improve quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata. It has nothing to
do with sources at the Wikipedia end because links are already based on
existing sources. It improves quality because it is assured that the link
go  where they are supposed to go given the source :) .

When we ensure quality for all our Wikipedias, the implicit quality rises
in Wikidata because we clearly want statements that describe the relation.
As relations are linked to Wikipedia, the source of that Wikipedia applies.
It does not mean that by other means the quality of the statements will not
be checked and improved.

In this way everybody wins. It is about our quality, it is measurable, it
is achievable, it is SMART. Requiring statements for every Wikidata
statement at this time of its life cycle is not.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 January 2016 at 11:58, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books
> from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
> reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
> pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
> the cited web page.
>
> There is a difference between unreliable assertions and knowledge.
> Wikimedia should be distributing knowledge. That's what the mission
> statement says. Wikidata could take citation a bit more seriously.
> On 26 Jan 2016 5:59 pm, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:
>
> > That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in
> > reference statements is harder
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Andrea Zanni" 
> > Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20
> > To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >- It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
> > book a
> > >publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
> > more
> > >time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> > > authors
> > >they need sources in their own right..
> > >
> >
> >
> > Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
> > Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and
> populate
> > it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
> > publishing, publisher).
> >
> > What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
> > often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
> > catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
> > Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
> >
> > I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
> >
> > Aubrey
> >
> >
> > [1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
> > Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do
> on a
> > local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
> > ___
> > 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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andrea Zanni]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books
> from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
> reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
> pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
> the cited web page.
>


I do agree with you.
But the problem emerges if you want to cite the reference (the book, the
article) as an item.
There you have to take into account a "book model" in Wikidata, and it's
easier said than done. (scientific articles are a bit easier, and Magnus is
working on them).
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData

Aubrey
___
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Jane Darnell]

That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in reference 
statements is harder

-Original Message-
From: "Andrea Zanni" 
Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

>- It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a book a
>publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH more
>time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> authors
>they need sources in their own right..
>


Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
publishing, publisher).

What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).

I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.

Aubrey


[1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
___
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] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Pine W]

It would be interesting to know if the people who participated in that
decision actually had the legal authority to make it. They might have, but
this would be worth further inquiry.

Pine

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:03 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Adam Wight 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization.  The
> > revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a
> > recommendation for appointment rather than a direct vote seem to have
> been
> > a surprise to many of us, and almost ten years after membership was
> > eliminated, we see strongly suggestive "directly elected" language still
> > being fixed on the Foundation's own Board elections page.[1]
> >
> > ​Adam, thank you for starting this discussion. Eric Moeller announced to
> the list in December 2006 that the bylaws had been changed and that we were
> no longer members, or as he said "​
> ​[​
> m
> ​]​
> embership was previously described in the bylaws but not actually
> implemented."
> ​ [1]
>
> Sarah
>
> 1.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2006-December/072001.html
> ___
> 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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Ricordisamoa]

Although it can be argued whether Arnnon's reassurance will be enough to 
let him stay safely on Board for two whole years, there's little doubt 
that public debate will finally benefit from knowing his viewpoint.


Il 26/01/2016 20:07, Arnnon Geshuri ha scritto:

It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how amazing
the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred
the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying
around convictions, and open disagreement.


Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that,
throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
and consistently.  I have done so realizing company policies and practices
evolve over time as circumstances change.



As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
running theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments
were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting
to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
the community.  I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
those who have been generous with their time.  Given the story line that
has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
trust in me.  I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
contributors, and users.
As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
right.  I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.  I
passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the
community and even the most energetic community members come from a place
of good intent.  And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best
intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.

Regards,
Arnnon
___
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] Update from the Board

[Amir Ladsgroup]

May I ask a question:
Do you think it's ethical to ignore community demand for an explanation or
a statement for *three weeks *and then issue a statement just within *three
hours* after the story publishes in BBC
 ? Is publicity and public
image of WMF BoT is this important to you comparing to what community asks?

Note: the BBC story has published in "2016-01-26T18:10:21+00:00" UTC. You
can check when the statement has issued.

I really really want to be mistaken, please tell me I'm mistaken

Best

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:50 AM Elliott Eggleston 
wrote:

> Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board.
> Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca
> <
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal
> >
> and the BBC , and have made
> it
> to the front page of Reddit
> <
> https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/42r7t3/wikipedia_editors_revolt_vote_no_confidence_in/
> >.
> This has gone beyond diminishing the staff's and community's trust in the
> board and is now damaging the image of the entire movement. The idea that
> "Wikipedia is something special" where integrity and transparency are
> priorities has attracted editors, donors, and employees. Let's not lose
> that.
>
> -Elliott
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alice,
> >
> > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
> give
> > a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I
> hope
> > it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand
> > that you want full information, but please also note that the
> conversation
> > in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it
> > or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could
> > you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing
> > it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to
> > differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a
> backroom.
> >
> > After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some
> > kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there
> > always will be a next time.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > > the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you
> have
> > > raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> > > information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the
> > board
> > > are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> > > considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
> > >
> > > In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we
> needed
> > > support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning,
> and
> > > human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> > > reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on
> > their
> > > expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates
> > and
> > > people, and supported their progress as finalists.
> > >
> > > We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> > > monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> > > unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
> > >
> > > Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response,
> > and
> > > we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
> > >
> > > Alice.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Michael Snow]

Hello Arnnon,

It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your 
intentions in the position you were appointed to are positive and 
supportive. Yet while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to 
help, I find it extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your 
contribution will bring the benefits that may have been contemplated.


Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is 
unfortunately rather lacking in substance. About the events in your 
career that have been the focus of so much concern, you suggest that 
there have been misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say 
nothing about what those misconceptions or mitigating considerations 
might be. I fully understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, 
you may not feel free to elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate 
any such obligations. However, the inability to provide more information 
is itself a major handicap for the role you are in. In fact, a 
requirement of silence becomes doubly destructive because it both 
provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and denies the Wikimedia 
Foundation the tools to respond effectively.


I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been 
touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the 
recruiting practices in question, it is not completely clear what level 
of responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could 
reasonably have done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you 
should have understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that 
one mistake (you do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you 
are not in a position to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) 
should necessarily disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf 
so eloquently explained on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope 
you saw, if you've been following the conversation as you say - it's 
nearly impossible to get people to leave things fully in the past 
without an acknowledgment of the mistake. I understand you want to earn 
the trust of the community. But if you cannot do what is needed for this 
trust to develop, then you simply will never be able to earn it from 
many people. This is another way in which silence becomes disabling. You 
might manage for people to move on enough that you can function in your 
role, but the issue will continue to hang over everything you do.


The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in 
human resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive 
experience and you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. 
I can also appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind 
of expertise. While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point 
during my tenure, it has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and 
these types of issues were prominent in my thinking about the 
organization, both as Chair and afterward. But under the circumstances, 
I struggle to see how your appointment would lead to a net benefit for 
the Foundation. Your skills and contacts might bring something that is 
lacking, but the problematic pieces of your background also reflect 
directly on the same area. Considerations such as staff morale have 
fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how having someone associated 
with these practices on the Board would be anything but a negative 
influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it to you, the rest of 
the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I think this is an 
extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an incredible 
amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere presence 
on the Board is likely to cause.


I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some 
sort of positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to 
your personal history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will 
at least try to explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the 
table. In the context of this particular appointment, however, it is a 
heavy weight you would need to counterbalance, and there may be other 
and better ways of approaching this.


--Michael Snow

On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:

It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how amazing
the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred
the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Peter Southwood]

If this was an article on Wikipedia it would already have been tagged for a 
speedy delete.
Too little, too late, and looks like 100% spin.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Arnnon Geshuri
Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016 9:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation 
Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of 
the community.  My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its 
vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse 
ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that 
the WMF sustains itself for another
fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred the 
tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply 
understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around 
convictions, and open disagreement.


Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are 
mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my 
career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role 
as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently.  I 
have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as 
circumstances change.



As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running 
theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments were 
expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking 
if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting to understand 
the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and 
former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community.  I have more 
conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous 
with their time.  Given the story line that has been shaped over the last 
couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a 
longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF 
alumni that they can put their trust in me.  I joined to make a positive 
difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next 
generation of editors, contributors, and users.
As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with 
thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right.  I 
have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend 
a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the 
learnings gained over the last decade.  I passionately believe in the core 
values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic 
community members come from a place of good intent.  And as we all become 
closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community 
will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to 
the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.

Regards,
Arnnon
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7357 / Virus Database: 4522/11490 - Release Date: 01/26/16


___
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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thanks for the FUD. You mention that the Wikimedia Foundation has plans.
Really.. There are plans that are published and there has been time for you
to consider them. They are the ones that the WMF has published, they are
the only ones that exist as far as I know and I follow Wikidata closely.
So where are your sources Pete?

When other plans exist, the WMF is not the party developing them. For
instance: I am arguing for the use of Wikidata in links and redlinks. I
have published about it and I welcome comments. I asked you personally and
you were not even interested.

Why should anyone be interested now?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 January 2016 at 08:33, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the
> most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back
> to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
>
> Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally
> problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these
> threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all
> parties.
>
> However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people
> publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are
> several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic at
> the core:
> * Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
> citations)
> * Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all Internet
> forums
> * All blogs
> * YouTube
> * Facebook
> * The Internet itself
> * The printing press
>
> Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for people --
> even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we are to
> fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same
> standard to other platforms.
>
> I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to
> paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an
> experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some
> instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion
> that Wikidata is problematic overall.
>
> That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not open
> to scrutiny.
>
> THAT, I believe, is a problem.
>
> Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged in
> problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
>
> I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from that
> perspective.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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] Evidence supporting my statements

[Fæ]

James, I agree you have little choice but to publish the facts in the
light of Jimmy Wales' abysmal behaviour.

For those that do not watch Wales' user talk page, yesterday evening he posted:
"James has made a lot of noise about why he was dismissed which is
utter and complete bullshit. He wrote a nice piece for the Signpost
about transparency which implied that the board got rid of him for
wanting more transparency. Utter fucking bullshit." [1]

The WMF board of trustees has reached an all time low when one of
their members is free to show leadership for our community by behaving
like an angry teenage bully.

Patricio, please be seen to put your house in order today, not in a
vague future world. If you have no authority to put a stop to this
uncivilized fat-headed behaviour or your board is stuck in paralysed
through over analysis and PR/legal advisors, then step down as chair
and put your weight behind a public call for the independent
governance review that everyone else but the trustees can see is
needed.

The vote of no confidence is today at 221 support votes to 17 opposed
for Geshuri to be leave the board, and the comments on that page
capture how terribly badly the board of trustees is perceived by the
majority of the community.[2]

Links:
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=701673700=701673178
2. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri

Thanks,
Fae

On 26 January 2016 at 07:57, James Heilman  wrote:
> Following the recent statements by JW on his talk page I am planning to
> publish my email to the board from Oct 7, 2015. I have given the board some
> time to redact anything they feel is confidential. I have also requested
> they send me information of what statute, bylaw, or board handbook item
> they feel would make details, if any, confidential.
>
> Additionally I do not see anything in Jimmy’s 12/30 email that should be
> confidential, and since I was not a Trustee at the time he sent it, clearly
> he did not consider it highly confidential either. But I prefer not to
> publish it without his consent, and I have no plans to do so.
>
> I hope for a reply from the board by Feb 8 and plan to release the email on
> Feb 15th.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [Wikidata] Reliable sources list validation for StrepHit

[Cristian Consonni]

2016-01-26 17:20 GMT+01:00 Marco Fossati :
> 2. *third-party*, i.e., not created by users of Wikimedia projects?

Or better, that are not derived from the contect of the Wikimedia
projects, to avoid circular references and citogenesis[1].

C
[1] https://xkcd.com/978/

___
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] Meta is apparently down

[Pharos]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

Thanks,
Pharos
___
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] Meta is apparently down

[Michael Peel]

Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad 
deployment, being reverted currently."

Thanks,
Mike

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> 
> Thanks,
> Pharos
> ___
> 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] Meta is apparently down

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-01-26 19:44, Pharos wrote:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

Thanks,
Pharos


Commons as well.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] Meta is apparently down

[Michael Peel]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124804 


> On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:45, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
> Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad 
> deployment, being reverted currently."
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
>> On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Pharos
>> ___
>> 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] Meta is apparently down

[Risker]

Indeed.  I was rather shocked to find that I was winding up on the
Wikimedia Foundation site every time I clicked on to Meta...

Risker/Anne

On 26 January 2016 at 13:45, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad
> deployment, being reverted currently."
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pharos
> > ___
> > 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] Meta is apparently down

[Lane Rasberry]

And Commons.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pharos 
wrote:

> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
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] Evidence supporting my statements

[Kevin Gorman]

It's...disturbing that this is necessary.  Bad things are going to happen
to the Wikimedia movement - or at least the Wikimedia Foundation -if the
Board doesn't get it together.  Bringing Arnnon on was a severe failure in
due diligence and the fact that failing to respond promptly starting to
look like paralysis rather than behind the scenes coordination is just
bad.  Removing a trustee who is a highly active and trusted community
member should only ever be done if absolutely necessary, and should be
followed up with prompt and transparent reasoning, not the mix of
falsehoods and bullshit that have accounted for a sizeable portion of what
anyone on Board has said publicly.

Jimmy, you should be embarrassed at that comment, and you should also
remember that your fame is contingent on the continued success of the
Wikimedia Foundation.  If that success is sabotaged by your behavior, I'm
sure you're still score some speaking fees, and I'm sure your stake in
Wikia is worth something, but you dont have the 500m cushion to either fall
back and rest on your laurels, use to reset yourself, or use to good (I
can't be the only person who is encouraging everyone who asks for a
suggestion at the moment to donate to the Internet Archive - which is still
primarily funded out of Brewster's Alexa fortune - over WMF.)

Other board members: fiduciary duties really isn't just a catchphrase and I
would highly encourage to consult outside counsel if you disagree with what
the board is up to and have questions about the scope of your obligations
and abilities.


Kevin Gorman

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:57 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> Following the recent statements by JW on his talk page I am planning to
> publish my email to the board from Oct 7, 2015. I have given the board some
> time to redact anything they feel is confidential. I have also requested
> they send me information of what statute, bylaw, or board handbook item
> they feel would make details, if any, confidential.
>
> Additionally I do not see anything in Jimmy’s 12/30 email that should be
> confidential, and since I was not a Trustee at the time he sent it, clearly
> he did not consider it highly confidential either. But I prefer not to
> publish it without his consent, and I have no plans to do so.
>
> I hope for a reply from the board by Feb 8 and plan to release the email on
> Feb 15th.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> 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] Meta is apparently down

[Risker]

...And Mediawikiwiki, where I tried to log into Phabricator...

Risker/Anne

On 26 January 2016 at 13:46, Lane Rasberry  wrote:

> And Commons.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pharos 
> wrote:
>
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pharos
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> 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] Meta is apparently down

[Techman224]

All file page links to Commons are being redirected to foundationwiki.

Techman224

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Risker  wrote:
> 
> Indeed.  I was rather shocked to find that I was winding up on the
> Wikimedia Foundation site every time I clicked on to Meta...
> 
> Risker/Anne
> 
> On 26 January 2016 at 13:45, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
>> Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad
>> deployment, being reverted currently."
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>> 
>>> On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
>>> 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pharos
>>> ___
>>> 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] Meta is apparently down

[Lane Rasberry]

"Looks like some new code went wonky (needless to say). Operations is aware
and working on reverting it. Everyone take deep breaths and hug a kitten
while we wait for them to fix things! Kbrown (WMF)
 "
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#WM_Commons_and_Meta_seem_to_be_redirecting_to_the_WMF_site
>

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad
> deployment, being reverted currently."
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pharos
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
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] Meta is apparently down

[Pine W]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124804

Pine

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> "Looks like some new code went wonky (needless to say). Operations is aware
> and working on reverting it. Everyone take deep breaths and hug a kitten
> while we wait for them to fix things! Kbrown (WMF)
>  "
> <
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#WM_Commons_and_Meta_seem_to_be_redirecting_to_the_WMF_site
> >
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad
> > deployment, being reverted currently."
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Pharos
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> 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] Meta is apparently down

[Pharos]

Yay!

It's working now -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hugging_cats

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> "Looks like some new code went wonky (needless to say). Operations is aware
> and working on reverting it. Everyone take deep breaths and hug a kitten
> while we wait for them to fix things! Kbrown (WMF)
>  "
> <
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#WM_Commons_and_Meta_seem_to_be_redirecting_to_the_WMF_site
> >
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad
> > deployment, being reverted currently."
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos  wrote:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Pharos
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> 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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Arnnon Geshuri]

It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how amazing
the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred
the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying
around convictions, and open disagreement.


Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that,
throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
and consistently.  I have done so realizing company policies and practices
evolve over time as circumstances change.



As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
running theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments
were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting
to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
the community.  I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
those who have been generous with their time.  Given the story line that
has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
trust in me.  I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
contributors, and users.
As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
right.  I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.  I
passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the
community and even the most energetic community members come from a place
of good intent.  And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best
intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.

Regards,
Arnnon
___
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] Update from the Board

[Alice Wiegand]

Dear all,
the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board
are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
considering people's opinions and his own next steps.

In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their
expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and
people, and supported their progress as finalists.

We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.

Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and
we plan to come back to you with more information soon.

Alice.



-- 
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] Update from the Board

[Pete Forsyth]

Alice and Arnnon,

Thank you for your recent messages and your efforts to grapple with these
issues. I have two questions which have been much discussed; perhaps you
can provide clarification, so we can better understand the process?

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Alice Wiegand 
wrote:

> Kelly and Arnnon were ... selected as finalists
>

Was it the entire Board, or a committee of the Board, or a committee
including Board members and other people who did that selecting? And if it
was a committee, how many finalists did the entire Board consider for the
two open seats?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] Update from the Board

[Lodewijk]

Hi Alice,

thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give
a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I hope
it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand
that you want full information, but please also note that the conversation
in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it
or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could
you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing
it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to
differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a backroom.

After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some
kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there
always will be a next time.

Best,
Lodewijk


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand 
wrote:

> Dear all,
> the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
> raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board
> are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
>
> In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
> support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
> human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their
> expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and
> people, and supported their progress as finalists.
>
> We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
>
> Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and
> we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
>
> Alice.
>
>
>
> --
> 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,
> 
___
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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Todd Allen]

Hello Arnnon,

I'm glad you've decided to join the discussion. (And do appreciate it; I'm
sure by now you know exactly what you're walking into.)

I don't, however, see that your statement says much. The heart of the issue
is that you assisted in implementing and enforcing a "no poaching"
practice, which is an illegal and unethical wage suppression tactic. When
someone did not go along with that practice (whether out of refusal or
simple error), you enthusiastically fired them.

If you would like to work on gaining trust, regardless of what happens with
you and the Board, I believe you ought to directly address that. "I was
just following policy" won't wash here, as it was clear from your
communication that you were well aware that you were helping to enforce
anticompetitive "do not poach" agreements. I think the primary question is,
why did you go along with this illegal practice rather than blowing the
whistle?

Regards,

Todd (Seraphimblade)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Arnnon Geshuri 
wrote:

> It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
> representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how amazing
> the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
> dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
> overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
> fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
> of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred
> the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
> deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying
> around convictions, and open disagreement.
>
>
> Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
> That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
> mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that,
> throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
> as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
> and consistently.  I have done so realizing company policies and practices
> evolve over time as circumstances change.
>
>
>
> As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
> running theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments
> were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting
> to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
> speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
> the community.  I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
> those who have been generous with their time.  Given the story line that
> has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
> my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
> members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
> trust in me.  I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
> important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
> contributors, and users.
> As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
> thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
> right.  I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
> careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
> Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.  I
> passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the
> community and even the most energetic community members come from a place
> of good intent.  And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
> issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
> the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best
> intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
>
> Regards,
> Arnnon
> ___
> 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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Fæ]

On 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri  wrote:
...
> Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
> That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
> mitigating considerations.

There are black and white facts which make you unsuitable to be a WMF
trustee, and which the board of trustees who appointed you were not
all aware of beforehand because you did not think that your key role
in the antitrust scandal was an issue of ethics worth explaining. Your
email statement does not address these key problems and manages to use
a lot of peacock prose which when struck out amounts to "Wikimedians
should move along now, nothing to see".

Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy
Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that
rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2] As Pine has stated
here, "your membership on the Board presents significant and
unnecessary risks", though the fact is that your failure to resign
gracefully is not a risk, but a major incident and an embarrassment.

Resign your unpaid trusteeship now, as you should have done a
fortnight ago, and save your fellow trustees the indignity of trying
to justify their bad governance in your appointment, rather than
honestly admit failure and reverse their decision.

Links
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208
2. 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal/

P.S. How is that nobody can work out who nominated/invited Geshuri for
the trustee position? There can be little doubt that they knew of his
chequered past when they did so.

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Nathan]

It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or
the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice
and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's
questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion
that he apparently participated in, I'm starting to feel sympathetic to
Arnnon for what the Board has put him through and for the criticism and
scrutiny he will continue to suffer for as long as he remains on the Board.
___
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] Update from the Board

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:
> the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
> raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board
> are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
>
> In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
> support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
> human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their
> expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and
> people, and supported their progress as finalists.
>
> We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
>
> Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and
> we plan to come back to you with more information soon.

I don't understand neither Arnnon nor the rest of the Board.

At the best, one month of this situation means one year less of your
lives because of stress. If Arnnon reaches Wikimedia Conference, every
day will take a year of your lives.

Admitting that you did something wrong is human.

To be honest, I don't think all of you, including Arnnon, are
stubborn. You are likely thinking you are choosing between two bad
things.

I read Arnnon's email and he convinced me. I mean, I am quite
convinced he could be quite good Board member exactly because of his
problematic background, as he would care much more what he is doing.
But he didn't convince 90% of Wikimedians. And that matters.

Just leave it. It's easier for everybody and it's right decision to
say "We are sorry, we did it wrong.". If some of you care about
reelection, it's wise to show human face. If you care about WMF's
integrity, Wikimedia movement is WMF's integrity. And Arnnon could
avoid the title of the most hated WMF Board member ever.

Or you really want to wait for Wikimedia Conference? Not to talk about
Wikimania.

-- 
Milos

___
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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Lilburne]

On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote:


While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe
that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign.




A quote from history would have been more succinct:
http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/


___
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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Michael Peel]

RIP AGF.

(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith 
 needs work!)

Mike

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:11, Lilburne  wrote:
> 
> On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote:
>> 
>> While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe
>> that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign.
>> 
>> 
> 
> A quote from history would have been more succinct:
> http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Kevin Gorman]

Arnnon -

This is about the first piece of polished communication put out by the
board regarding either recent incident - and given your professional
background, it doesn't really surprise me that you are the first person
involved to put out a polished communication.  I have no doubt that your
backgrounds at Tesla and Google helped you develop a skillset that the WMF
Board truly needs - and those aren't positions you would have held if you
were bad at your job. Unfortunately, your own actions prevent you from
successfully fulfilling the honorable duties of a trustee.  It would be one
thing if the issues at hand were just rumor and innuendo, but there's
already been a half a billion dollar settled class action suit involving a
series of actions where, although you may not have been the absolute
center, you were certainly at least quite visible on center stage, and your
name is mentioned quite a bit on PACER.  Some lawsuits get settled because
it's easier to settle than it is to fight them - that's not the case here.
Even for four tech giants, $415,000,000 isn't a nuisance settlement.

Now, lets take a further step back, and remember that the settled suit
isn't for shareholder damages due to poor decisions or anything of that
nature - it's for employee wages lost due to illegal and unethical
anti-solicitation agreements.  The companies involved deny breaking the
law, but even four tech giants aren't going to give away $415,000,000 out
of the goodness of their hearts, and the publicly available documents make
it entirely obvious that if it had gone to trial there would have not been
a good outcome for the companies involved.  Let's reframe 'employee wages
lost due to illegal and unethical anti-solicitation agreeements' one more
time.

You played a fundamental role in stealing $415,000,000 from your employees
and the employees of three other companies.  Even though you have a
skillset that WMF needs, that is absolutely incompatible with the honorable
duties of a trustee, out of line with the fundamental values of the
Wikimedia movement, and even more problematic at a time when cultural
matchup between the Board and everyone else is in greater doubt than at any
other time in the history of Wikimedia.

Resign. Please.


Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or
> the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice
> and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's
> questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion
> that he apparently participated in, I'm starting to feel sympathetic to
> Arnnon for what the Board has put him through and for the criticism and
> scrutiny he will continue to suffer for as long as he remains on the Board.
> ___
> 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] Update from the Board

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Lodewijk,


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give
> a clear time table for further updates.


let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to
follow up with an update in a week or less.

best,

dj
___
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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Sydney Poore]

Hello Arnnon,

What you describe as an *inspirational* experience, I see as an extremely
painful event to watch as it damages the Wikimedia Foundation and the
wikimedia movement.

Please keep in mind that you and the Board are not the only people who are
living through this situation.

I doubt that I'm alone in thinking that no matter the positive skills and
traits you bring to the Board, the questions your appointment raise are a
massive distraction to some important current matters such as the WMF
annual plan and strategy.

Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm for working through the issues
your appointment is causing the wikimedia movement.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
On Jan 26, 2016 3:08 PM, "Arnnon Geshuri"  wrote:

> It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
> representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how amazing
> the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
> dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
> overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
> fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
> of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred
> the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
> deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying
> around convictions, and open disagreement.
>
>
> Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
> That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
> mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that,
> throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
> as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
> and consistently.  I have done so realizing company policies and practices
> evolve over time as circumstances change.
>
>
>
> As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
> running theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments
> were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting
> to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
> speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
> the community.  I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
> those who have been generous with their time.  Given the story line that
> has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
> my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
> members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
> trust in me.  I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
> important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
> contributors, and users.
> As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
> thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
> right.  I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
> careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
> Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.  I
> passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the
> community and even the most energetic community members come from a place
> of good intent.  And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
> issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
> the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best
> intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
>
> Regards,
> Arnnon
> ___
> 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] Update from the Board

[Pine W]

I hope that the Board will make clear in its longer statement that the
value of competence is an unacceptable trade for the value of integrity,
and will explain how the Board reconciles the history of this trustee with
the values of WMF and the Wikimedia movement. Personally, I have great
difficulty that any such reconciliation can be made.

Pine

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> hi Lodewijk,
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
> > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
> give
> > a clear time table for further updates.
>
>
> let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to
> follow up with an update in a week or less.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> ___
> 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] New board for Wikimedia Belgium

[Santiago Navarro]

Thank you to the people who leave and welcome to the new members. 
Regards from Spain.


El 2016-01-24 02:11, Romaine Wiki escribió:

Hello all,

We as Wikimedia Belgium now have a new board installed with the 
General

Assembly of Saturday 23 January 2016.

Three board members leave (due time constraints):
* MADe - our hard working president who focussed on the goal of 
founding

Wikimedia Belgium and he did!

* M0tty - our vice president who is one of the founders and 
collaborated

with the Mundaneum.

* Dimi z - our international liaison and one of the founders and is 
the

face to the European politicians in Brussels.

All three remain active for Wikimedia Belgium in an advisory role for 
the

board.

Thank you MADe, M0tty & Dimi z for your work the past years!


Two board members come in:
* SPQRobin - member of the Wikimedia language committee, developer, 
and

long term Wikipedia editor.

* Lfurter - graphic designer, researcher, curator, and organiser of
multiple Wikimedia events.


Welcome SPQRobin & Lfurter!


Also a new president of our chapter has been elected. This is now 
Geertivp.


Geertivp had in the board the role of secretary, which included a
performance on Belgian television last week. Thank you for your work 
as

secretary and success with the role as president!

SPQRobin takes over the role of secretary from Geertivp.


Romaine
___
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,



--
Santiago Navarro Sanz
Presidente
Wikimedia España
www.wikimedia.es

___
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] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Adam Wight]

Dear friends,

Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia
Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization.  The
revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a
recommendation for appointment rather than a direct vote seem to have been
a surprise to many of us, and almost ten years after membership was
eliminated, we see strongly suggestive "directly elected" language still
being fixed on the Foundation's own Board elections page.[1]

It turns out that this history is colorful, the Foundation was a membership
organization from 2003-2006 and Board seats were indeed, originally,
intended to be directly elected by member-Wikimedians.  It seems that the
membership issue was never quite resolved.  I've put some of my notes on
metawiki, please forward to any wiki historians who might be interested in
throwing their weight on a shovel.

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

As a current WMF staff member, and having received a formal scolding two
weeks ago for expressing my professional and personal opinions on this
list--that a hierarchical corporate structure is completely inappropriate
and ineffectual for running the Foundation--I don't feel safe
editorializing about what membership could mean for the future of the
Wikimedia movement.  But I would be thrilled to see this discussion take
place, and to contribute however I am able.

A note to fellow staff: Anything you can say about this history is most
likely protected speech under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, since we're asking
whether state and federal laws were violated.

In solidarity,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees=104732=104425
___
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] Update from the Board

[Elliott Eggleston]

Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board.
Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca

and the BBC , and have made it
to the front page of Reddit
.
This has gone beyond diminishing the staff's and community's trust in the
board and is now damaging the image of the entire movement. The idea that
"Wikipedia is something special" where integrity and transparency are
priorities has attracted editors, donors, and employees. Let's not lose
that.

-Elliott

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi Alice,
>
> thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give
> a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I hope
> it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand
> that you want full information, but please also note that the conversation
> in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it
> or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could
> you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing
> it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to
> differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a backroom.
>
> After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some
> kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there
> always will be a next time.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> > the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
> > raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> > information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the
> board
> > are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> > considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
> >
> > In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
> > support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
> > human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> > reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on
> their
> > expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates
> and
> > people, and supported their progress as finalists.
> >
> > We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> > monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> > unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
> >
> > Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response,
> and
> > we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
> >
> > Alice.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Ruslan Takayev]

Hello Arnnon, and welcome.

It is great that you are working hard to earn our trust.
Unfortunately, your statement, which is somewhat self-serving, totally
omits the issues that a very wide cross-section of the Wikimedia
community has a MAJOR issue with.

So perhaps you can answer some questions:

1) Why did you do it?

2) Would you do it again?

3) What have you learned from you role in the scheme that has cost
those companies hundreds of millions of dollars?

And most importantly,

4) Why should we trust you?

If you can't answer these questions, please resign.

Warmest regards,

Ruslan Takayev

___
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Eh, wrong link ...
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the
> way
> > the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
> > those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
> > Thanks.,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
> > [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/341GC2.jpg
>


Gerard,

You say in your January 2016 blog post,



The article on the Spearman Medal is a case in point. This medal is
conferred by the British Psychological Society to psychologists. There were
19 links and two were wrong. One link was to a soccer and one to a football
player. The award is conferred since 1965 so there ought to be quite a
number of red links

With two sportsmen attributed to winning the Spearman Medal there was an
error rate of 20%.



Looking at the current version of the [[Spearman Medal]] article,[1] last
touched in August 2014 (i.e. well before your blog post), I find it
contains 20 (not 19) blue links in its List of medal winners (along with a
bunch of red links).

Looking at the blue links, I find only one soccer/football player (Richard
Crisp), not two. However, there is also a research climatologist
specialising in viticulture (Gregory V. Jones).

These two would seem quite obviously to be wrong, given that the Spearman
Medal is given to psychologists. So I agree with you that at least two blue
links lead to the wrong person.

I don't agree with your percentage calculation: if 2 out of 20 blue links
lead to the wrong person, that makes an error rate of 10% (not 20%).

I note that only two of the names in the list have references. That's just
as bad as Wikidata. :)

The saving grace is that at least the article cites a British Psychological
Society webpage in its lead where an official list of medal winners[2] is
linked. Frankly, I would consider that page a better reference than the
Wikipedia page. It's good to see that it outranks the Wikipedia page in
search engines.

Speaking more broadly, I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with you
that Wikipedia quality leaves much to be desired. I have written plenty
about Wikipedia's reliability problems.

However, I consider the requirement for reliable sources to be a key factor
in whatever quality improvement there has been in Wikipedia. Moreover, the
presence of sources very often gives readers access to more reliable
material than Wikipedia itself (as indeed is the case in the Spearman Medal
article). That is useful.

In my view, much of Wikipedia has been and continues to be substandard. But
without references, Wikidata's reliability problems are likely to be even
greater than those of Wikipedia.

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spearman_Medal=620735680
[2]
http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/bps/history-psychology-centre/history-society/society-award-winners/spearman-medal/spearman-medal
___
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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Andrea Zanni]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> You write about your fear, uncertainty and doubt .. Why have us waste time
> on it? Do something useful.
> Thanks,
>


I, for one, think that the mail Pete sent (both in content and tone) is
perfectly fine and helpful.
I don't know if I share his concerns about WMF plans for Wikidata, but I
perfectly agree on his position regarding Andreas' criticism on Wikidata. A
distinction was needed.
All in all, I think this thread is useful. M2c.

Aubrey
___
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] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Liam Wyatt]

On 26 January 2016 at 11:24, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in
> the
> > most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted
> back
> > to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
> >
> > Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is
> fundamentally
> > problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> > correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.)
>
>
> Every statement on Wikidata /should/ be referenced, unless the statement
> itself points to a reference (e.g. VIAF, images). However, at the moment,
> this is not a requirement, as Wikidata is still in a steep growth phase.
> Over the last few years, many statements were added by bots, which can
> process e.g. Wikipedia, but would be hard pressed to find the original
> reference for a statement.


To extend Magnus' point...
This is also the case on Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia sentence /should/ be
verified to a reliable source, and those without footnotes can be removed.
But, it is not a /requirement/ that every statement be verified. In short -
'verifiable not verified' is the minimum standard for inclusion of a
sentence in Wikipedia. The ratio of footnotes-to-sentences in Wikipedia
articles is on average probably much lower than the ratio of
references-to-statements in Wikidata. It's just that we have more easily
available /quantitative/ statistics for Wikidata that we do for Wikipedia,
which makes it easy for Wikidata-critics to point to the number of
un-referenced statements in Wikidata as a simple measure of quality, even
though many of them DO meet the "verifiable, even if not yet verified"
minimum standard that we accept for "stubs" on Wikipedia.

For example: even in a Feature Article Wikipedia biography, I've never seen
a footnote /specifically/ for the fact that the subject is "a human". That
reference is implied by other footnotes - citing for the birthdate, or
occupation for example. By comparison, in Wikidata, some people seem to be
a feeling that statements like "instance of -> human", "gender-> male" need
to be given a specific reference before they can be considered reliable.
This is even when there are other statements in the same Wikidata item that
reference biography-authority control numbers (e.g. VIAF).

Yes, ideally, every statement could be given a reference in Wikidata, but
ideally so should every sentence in Wikipedia. In reality we do accept
"stub" Wikipedia articles that have 5 sentences and 1 Reliable Source
footnote. Furthermore, we also do also have Wikidata properties that are,
in effect, "self verifying": like the "VIAF identifier" property - which
links to that authority control database, or the "image" property - which
links directly to a file on Commons. So, simply counting the number of
statements vs. the number of references in those statements on Wikidata and
concluding that Wikidata is therefore inherently unreliable is both
simplistic and quite misleading.

-Liam

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Affiliations Committee appointments, January 2016

[Samir Elsharbaty]

Congrats to all new members!
On Jan 24, 2016 8:31 PM, "Kirill Lokshin"  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that, following the recent call for applications,
> the following candidates have been appointed to seats on the Affiliations
> Committee:
>
> - Salvador Alcantar Morán (re-appointment)
> - Carlos M. Colina (re-appointment)
> - Galileo Vidoni (re-appointment)
> - Emna Mizouni
> - Tanweer Morshed
> - Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>
> The newly appointed (and re-appointed) members will serve two-year terms,
> ending in December 2017.
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to thank each of the
> applicants, as well as all of the community members who took the time to
> offer their feedback on the candidates during the public review process.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links
> for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling
> Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there
> are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia.
>


Well, not 100% either, because the 1982 winner, Andrew W. Ellis, is missing
in Reasonator.[1]



> The proof is in the pudding. For simple lists and links Wikidata is hands
> down superior.



That depends entirely on the volunteers involved, and the quality of their
work. I don't think Wikidata has a systemic advantage. At any rate, given
its lack of referencing standards, what's being added to Wikidata today is
less likely to be verifiable than what is being added to Wikipedia today.

Andreas

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=15995494
___
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,