Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

+ Footnotes.




On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions
> raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions
> specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue
> strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some
> of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
>
> It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating
> a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some
> point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though
> we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against
> increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general
> search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus
> is on knowledge.
>
>
> To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery
> team.  This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect
> our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our
> volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected
> and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple,
> non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
>
> I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our
> Wikimedia movement.  Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We
> will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path
> accordingly.
>
> Lila
>
>
>
> [1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
> easier for users of the sites to find
>
> [2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
> like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources)
>
> [2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge
>
> [3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all
> content included (shops, goods, etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin  > wrote:
>
>> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the
>> documents
>> I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
>> lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
>> for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
>> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
>> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
>> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig
>>
>> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hoi,
>> > > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
>> that
>> > > kind of money.
>> >
>> > I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
>> > proposed here. Is it:
>> > 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
>> > easier for users of the sites to find
>> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
>> > like-minded sources into the mix
>> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
>> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
>> >
>> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
>> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
>> reality?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mike
>> > ___
>> > 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,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
>



-- 
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi Mike,

We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions
raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions
specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue
strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some
of our hypotheses on how to best do this.

It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating
a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some
point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though
we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against
increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general search
engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus is on
knowledge.


To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery
team.  This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect
our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our
volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected
and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple,
non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.

I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our
Wikimedia movement.  Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We
will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path
accordingly.

Lila








On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the documents
> I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
> lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
> for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
> that
> > > kind of money.
> >
> > I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
> > proposed here. Is it:
> > 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
> > easier for users of the sites to find
> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
> > like-minded sources into the mix
> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
> >
> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
> reality?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Reasonator is at this stage at best and at most as good as bot generated
articles. Generally they suck but provide a service. Reasonator does not
provide adequate service. Try this [1] for instance. Reasonator will not
create proper texts for many if not most languages because Wikidata does
not have the information to do that properly. It can be done and it should
be done but that is a completely different story and will have a gestation
period of years not months.

The fact that Magnus pulled a rabbit out of a hat is just that. It is a
hack, a wonderful hack and it is possible to hack around this whole issue
but true text generation on the appropriate level is NOT what Wikidata
currently does. What Reasonator does in stead is provide adequate
information where Wikidata provides unstructured data.

Jimmy is right when he says that at this stage on the fly creation of
articles is impossible.

This whole story has the grant of the Knight Foundation as its flashpoint.
It is only that and sadly so. The point is that many people in the
community do not trust the Wikimedia Foundation to do good. This is not a
recent thing. We have always had people insist on some crackpot idea. An
old one is the insistence that old skins should still work. That all
information should be possible in a text only browser. Commons cannot be
trusted with public domain pictures. Many people and ideas like this are
alive and well and sour our relations.

People advocated for a different board. They got it and the result is
disappointing. What makes it bad is that the diplomatic skills of Jan-Bart
are sorely missed. What makes it bad that the flash point is mistaken for
the issue. What makes it bad is that bad faith is assumed.

My experience is that what the community spouts is worse than what the WMF
does. It actively undermines what we stand for and at the same time it is
not even open to consider issues around quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
that are not the same old old.

Really do consider what you want and what the real issue is. Forget about
this grant because it is not about search, it is not about automatically
generated articles. What it is about is "share in the sum of all knowledge"
and how we are going to accomplish this together.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339=de

On 16 February 2016 at 01:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
>
> ---o0o---
>
> First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no
> need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
> technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
> necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page
> "API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points
> out:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> * Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated
> articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of
> such articles:
>
>
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339=wikipedia=en=long=html=reasonator
>
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339
>
> The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the
> idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and
> machine-assisted content."
>
> Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete,
> I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory
> messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.
>
> Could this please stop?
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=705170990
>
> [2]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also
> [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/
> [4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Lila,
> >
> > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> the
> > words in the application itself.
> >
> > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> Siko
> > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > Quotes:
> >
> > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > proposing that WMF should get into the general 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

[Anna Stillwell]

This is great news. Thank you.
Warmly,
/a

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Alex Wang  wrote:

> Congrats! So wonderful to see so many new articles and a great number of
> participants. Looking forward to more Wiki Loves Women activities!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Chris Schilling  >
> wrote:
>
> > Fantastic news, Florence.  Thanks for sharing.  : )
> >
> > - Jethro
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Florence Devouard 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good evening everyone !
> > >
> > > Results of the contest are published !
> > >
> > >
> > > At the end of the contest,
> > >
> > > 15 Anglophone teams (27 participants)
> > > 18 Francophone teams (24 participants)
> > > and 1 team (4 participants) from Armenian language (completely
> unexpected
> > > ... but so very welcome!)
> > >
> > > produced no less than ...
> > >
> > > 71 new biographies in English,
> > > 122 new biographies in French
> > > and 41 new articles in Armenian.
> > >
> > > This result is way beyond our expectations! And so incredibly great!
> > >
> > > Check out details here
> > > * In English :
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest#Results
> > > * In French :
> > >
> >
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27écriture/Résultats
> 
> > <
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27%C3%A9criture/R%C3%A9sultats
> >
> > > <
> >
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27%C3%A9criture/R%C3%A9sultats
> > >
> > >
> > > Congrats everyone !
> > >
> > > Anthere
> > >
> > > Le 15/01/16 12:58, Florence Devouard a écrit :
> > >
> > > The Wiki Love Women writing contest is now officially open !
> > >>
> > >> Please join in to celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating to the
> > >> bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of
> > >> notable African women that are covered on Wikipedia.
> > >> The contest is also meant as a starting point of Wiki Loves Women, a
> > >> content liberation project related to Women in Africa.
> > >>
> > >> We would love to see you participate to the writing contest !
> > >> If you want to, there are 3 ways to participate
> > >> * You want to create an article ? Please add your name here
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Teams
> > >> .
> > >> You may be solo, or you could seek the help of others to join your
> team.
> > >> Or you can join an already existing team. You must start a new article
> > >> (translation from another language is allowed). You have 15 days :)
> > >> * Or you may simply add suggestions for articles to write here :
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Articles_suggestions
> > >> .
> > >> Of course, be careful of notability etc.
> > >> * Or you would be willing to join the jury. If so, please drop to the
> > >> page
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Jury
> > >> to propose your help
> > >>
> > >> It is all meant to be an easy going contest... no hassle... just for
> the
> > >> pleasure of working together on a theme still little covered on
> > >> Wikipedia (even after 15 years...)
> > >>
> > >> Anthere and Isla
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> LINKS
> > >>
> > >> The writing contest :
> > >>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest
> > >>
> > >> On meta :
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest
> > >>
> > >> Wiki Loves Women website : http://www.wikiloveswomen.org (bear with
> > >> us... still very new)
> > >>
> > >> Twitter #wikiloveswomen
> > >>
> > >> Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesWomen/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris "Jethro" Schilling
> > I JethroBT (WMF) 
> > Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
> > 
> > ___
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

[Alex Wang]

Congrats! So wonderful to see so many new articles and a great number of
participants. Looking forward to more Wiki Loves Women activities!

Cheers,

Alex

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Chris Schilling 
wrote:

> Fantastic news, Florence.  Thanks for sharing.  : )
>
> - Jethro
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
> > Good evening everyone !
> >
> > Results of the contest are published !
> >
> >
> > At the end of the contest,
> >
> > 15 Anglophone teams (27 participants)
> > 18 Francophone teams (24 participants)
> > and 1 team (4 participants) from Armenian language (completely unexpected
> > ... but so very welcome!)
> >
> > produced no less than ...
> >
> > 71 new biographies in English,
> > 122 new biographies in French
> > and 41 new articles in Armenian.
> >
> > This result is way beyond our expectations! And so incredibly great!
> >
> > Check out details here
> > * In English :
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest#Results
> > * In French :
> >
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27écriture/Résultats
> 
> > <
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27%C3%A9criture/R%C3%A9sultats
> >
> >
> > Congrats everyone !
> >
> > Anthere
> >
> > Le 15/01/16 12:58, Florence Devouard a écrit :
> >
> > The Wiki Love Women writing contest is now officially open !
> >>
> >> Please join in to celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating to the
> >> bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of
> >> notable African women that are covered on Wikipedia.
> >> The contest is also meant as a starting point of Wiki Loves Women, a
> >> content liberation project related to Women in Africa.
> >>
> >> We would love to see you participate to the writing contest !
> >> If you want to, there are 3 ways to participate
> >> * You want to create an article ? Please add your name here
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Teams
> >> .
> >> You may be solo, or you could seek the help of others to join your team.
> >> Or you can join an already existing team. You must start a new article
> >> (translation from another language is allowed). You have 15 days :)
> >> * Or you may simply add suggestions for articles to write here :
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Articles_suggestions
> >> .
> >> Of course, be careful of notability etc.
> >> * Or you would be willing to join the jury. If so, please drop to the
> >> page
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Jury
> >> to propose your help
> >>
> >> It is all meant to be an easy going contest... no hassle... just for the
> >> pleasure of working together on a theme still little covered on
> >> Wikipedia (even after 15 years...)
> >>
> >> Anthere and Isla
> >>
> >>
> >> LINKS
> >>
> >> The writing contest :
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest
> >>
> >> On meta :
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest
> >>
> >> Wiki Loves Women website : http://www.wikiloveswomen.org (bear with
> >> us... still very new)
> >>
> >> Twitter #wikiloveswomen
> >>
> >> Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesWomen/
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Chris "Jethro" Schilling
> I JethroBT (WMF) 
> Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Project & Event Grants
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: February 2016 Lightning Talks

[Pine W]

Reminder that these lightning talks are happening tomorrow, Tuesday
February 16, at 1900 UTC / 11:00 AM Pacific. Because there are 3 presenters
and a 1-hour block of time, each presenter has about 15 minutes including
time for questions. We might finish early.

On the agenda:

* Pine: "LearnWIki" Instructional video series on Wikipedia mechanics
(Including VE and citoid) and community practices


* Madhu Viswanathan: "Counting unique devices accessing Wikipedia projects
using Last access method"

* Rosemary Rein: "Program Capacity and Learning-Building a Roadmap Together"


Hope to see you there!

Pine



On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Leduc  wrote:

> Thanks for forwarding Pine!  I welcome any 10 minute talks from GLAM and
> Education as well.  If you add your name to the list [1], email me as well
> so I can contact you and forward notes for Lightning Talk speakers.
>
> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lightning_Talks#February_2016
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Boldly forwarding* in case others would like to view or present a
>> lightning talk. I plan to give a lightning talk about the video series
>> 
>> which I'm in the process of producing with the support of an individual
>> engagement grant.
>>
>> Although these talks can be about technical topics like video formats, I
>> think that there are education and GLAM activities that could fit under the
>> umbrella as well, especially if they have technical or research aspects.
>> For example, I'll probably focus much of my presentation on my background
>> research and project design process.
>>
>> Hope to see you there!
>> Pine
>>
>> * To boldly forward where no one has forwarded before
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Kevin Leduc 
>> Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM
>> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: February 2016 Lightning Talks
>> To: Wikimedia developers 
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Kevin Leduc 
>> Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:22 PM
>> Subject: February 2016 Lightning Talks
>> To: "Staff (All)" 
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> The next Lightning Talks are scheduled for February 16th (two weeks from
>> today).  We hope at least 4 people will sign up for the talks by Friday
>> February 12th otherwise we will postpone them another month.  Lightning
>> Talks are an opportunity for teams @ WMF & in the Community to showcase
>> something they have achieved:  a quarterly goal, milestone, release, or
>> anything of significance to the rest of the foundation and the movement as
>> a whole.
>>
>>
>> Each presentation will be 10 minutes or less including time for questions.
>>
>> Sign up here:
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lightning_Talks#February_2016
>>
>>
>> Next round of Lightning Talks:
>>
>> When: Tuesday February 16, 1900 UTC
>> <
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Lightning+Talks=20160216T19=1440=1
>> >,
>> 11am PST (We have added this Lightning Talk to the WMF Engineering, Fun &
>> Learning, and Staff calendars)
>>
>> Where: 5th Floor
>>
>> Remotees: On-Air google hangout will be provided just before the meeting
>>
>> IRC: #wikimedia-tech
>>
>> YouTube stream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fyCgBWvFc
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kevin Leduc, Megan Neisler, Brendan Campbell
>> ___
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Mike,

If we're thinking about having article generators produce articles "on the
fly" and deliver them to millions of readers in response to queries,
especially in foreign languages, then that doesn't meet my definition of
"that isn't what is intended at all, obviously".

Andreas

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with
> "no
> > need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
> > technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
> > necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
>
> That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that
> can then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to
> the standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that
> Wikidata can provide FA-quality articles already?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michael Peel]

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> 
> Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
> 
> ---o0o---
> 
> First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no
> need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
> technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
> necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.

That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that can 
then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to the 
standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that Wikidata 
can provide FA-quality articles already?

Thanks,
Mike
___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer

---o0o---

First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no
need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.

---o0o---

So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page
"API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points out:

---o0o---

* Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated
articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.

---o0o---

Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of
such articles:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339=wikipedia=en=long=html=reasonator

https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339

The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the
idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and
machine-assisted content."

Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete,
I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory
messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.

Could this please stop?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=705170990

[2]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also
[3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/
[4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge



On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Lila,
>
> The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
> words in the application itself.
>
> I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
> questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> willful lies that came to mind for me.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> Quotes:
>
> "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
>  and etiquette
> , and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus  on the
> WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
>
> "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
> to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> application, August 2015
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> > memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker 
> wrote:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Craig Franklin]

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the documents
I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.

Cheers,
Craig

On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money.
>
> I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
> proposed here. Is it:
> 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
> easier for users of the sites to find
> 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
> like-minded sources into the mix
> 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
> ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
>
> A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
> (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the reality?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Amen
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 23:36, Leinonen Teemu 
wrote:

> > On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > - Lack of Strategy -
> >
> > Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
> > WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision.
>
> Search is a critical feature in all online services, especially for a
> service with a mission to "empower and engage people around the world to
> collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the
> public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally".
>
> Putting resources to improve search is no a "major strategic decision”. it
> is business-as-usual.
>
> Also federated / semantic search to all the Wikipedia projects and outside
> sources of free content is definitely worth of exploring. Any  strategies
> should have space to explore things that are advancing the mission.
>
> - Teemu
>
> --
> Teemu Leinonen
> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> +358 50 351 6796
> Media Lab
> http://mlab.uiah.fi
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture
> --
>
> ___
> 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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Leinonen Teemu]

> On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> - Lack of Strategy -
> 
> Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
> WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. 

Search is a critical feature in all online services, especially for a service 
with a mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and 
develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and 
to disseminate it effectively and globally". 

Putting resources to improve search is no a "major strategic decision”. it is 
business-as-usual.

Also federated / semantic search to all the Wikipedia projects and outside 
sources of free content is definitely worth of exploring. Any  strategies 
should have space to explore things that are advancing the mission.

- Teemu 

--
Teemu Leinonen
http://teemuleinonen.fi
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
Aalto University 
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
--

___
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] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

[Chris Schilling]

Fantastic news, Florence.  Thanks for sharing.  : )

- Jethro

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Good evening everyone !
>
> Results of the contest are published !
>
>
> At the end of the contest,
>
> 15 Anglophone teams (27 participants)
> 18 Francophone teams (24 participants)
> and 1 team (4 participants) from Armenian language (completely unexpected
> ... but so very welcome!)
>
> produced no less than ...
>
> 71 new biographies in English,
> 122 new biographies in French
> and 41 new articles in Armenian.
>
> This result is way beyond our expectations! And so incredibly great!
>
> Check out details here
> * In English :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest#Results
> * In French :
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27écriture/Résultats
> 
>
> Congrats everyone !
>
> Anthere
>
> Le 15/01/16 12:58, Florence Devouard a écrit :
>
> The Wiki Love Women writing contest is now officially open !
>>
>> Please join in to celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating to the
>> bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of
>> notable African women that are covered on Wikipedia.
>> The contest is also meant as a starting point of Wiki Loves Women, a
>> content liberation project related to Women in Africa.
>>
>> We would love to see you participate to the writing contest !
>> If you want to, there are 3 ways to participate
>> * You want to create an article ? Please add your name here
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Teams
>> .
>> You may be solo, or you could seek the help of others to join your team.
>> Or you can join an already existing team. You must start a new article
>> (translation from another language is allowed). You have 15 days :)
>> * Or you may simply add suggestions for articles to write here :
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Articles_suggestions
>> .
>> Of course, be careful of notability etc.
>> * Or you would be willing to join the jury. If so, please drop to the
>> page
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Jury
>> to propose your help
>>
>> It is all meant to be an easy going contest... no hassle... just for the
>> pleasure of working together on a theme still little covered on
>> Wikipedia (even after 15 years...)
>>
>> Anthere and Isla
>>
>>
>> LINKS
>>
>> The writing contest :
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest
>>
>> On meta :
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest
>>
>> Wiki Loves Women website : http://www.wikiloveswomen.org (bear with
>> us... still very new)
>>
>> Twitter #wikiloveswomen
>>
>> Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesWomen/
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) 
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation

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

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Looking for Wikipedians in the Balkans, Caucasus and Turkey for project with Osservatorio Balcani-Caucaso

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi all,

I am forwarding you this message from Davide, the Wikipedian in
Residence at Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso in Rovereto (TN).

You find him in copy, please contact him directly if you interested in
the projec.

Cristian
On behalf of Wikimedia Italia

---
Dear Wikimedians,

I am the Wikipedian-in-Residence at Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso
(OBC), an italian research centre, and I am coming to you looking for
help in concluding my project on press and media freedom in East and
South-East Europe.

in in these months at OBC I've been developing a series of pages of
the "Media of " series. I've added information on the media
system and media freedom in several countries of East and South East
Europe (Caucasus is coming soon too), by building upon reports of
international organisations such as the EJC, Freedom House, etc. You
will find the links in the GLAM/OBC page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/OBC.

Now, I would like to ask for your collaboration as citizens and native
speakers. It would be good if one or more of you could "adopt" the
article concerning your own country, check it for mistakes and update
it where needed, with native-language sources too. Secondly, once
verified, it could be good to translate the article in the original
language of the country concerned too.

Will you be able find some time in the coming weeks to help me with
this project? I hope so :) Just get in touch, either here or on the
related page.

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Best regards,
Davide

Davide Denti
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso - WiR ECPMF
email: de...@balcanicaucaso.org
skype: davide.denti

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Cristian Consonni
 wrote:
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Wikimedia Italia has started since this month a project with
> "Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso" (Balcan and Caucasus Observatory,
> ).
>
> Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso (OBC) is a research institute focused on
> South-East Europe, Turkey and the Caucasus which was launched in the
> year 2000 and which is based in Rovereto (Trento), in the north-east
> of Italy. The main focus of OBC is to produce studies and reports
> related to freedom of the press in the 26 countries that they monitor.
> They collaborate with a net of over 50 correspondents, including
> journalists, researchers, and activists in the various countries.
>
> With the help of WM-IT, OBC selected a Wikipedian in Residence for the
> next months. His name is Davide Denti[1] and you can find his contact
> in copy. Davide is a long-time Wikipedian, contributing on it.wiki
> since 2007, he is also a PhD candidate at the University of Trento, in
> Trento in the north of Italy, where is working on his thesis about EU
> enlargement policies with respect to the western balkans and in
> Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular.
>
> The residence is fully founded through a EU project called "European
> Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)" 
> with partners - both individuals, for example journalists, and
> organisations - in several countries[2a][2b].
>
> In the scope of this project we would like to come in touch with
> Wikipedians in the region of Balkans that may find this project of
> interest, we also think that you may be interested in building
> relations with institutions in your country that participate in this
> project.
>
> We look forward to collaborating with you to make this project, and
> the content on Wikipedia about Balkans and Caucasus, better.
>
> Cristian
> on behalf on Wikimedia Italia
>
> [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Davide_Denti_%28OBC%29
> [2a] http://ecpmf.eu/members
> [2b] http://ecpmf.eu/ecpmf/people-and-partners/consortium

___
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] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

[Florence Devouard]

Good evening everyone !

Results of the contest are published !


At the end of the contest,

15 Anglophone teams (27 participants)
18 Francophone teams (24 participants)
and 1 team (4 participants) from Armenian language (completely 
unexpected ... but so very welcome!)


produced no less than ...

71 new biographies in English,
122 new biographies in French
and 41 new articles in Armenian.

This result is way beyond our expectations! And so incredibly great!

Check out details here
* In English : 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest#Results
* In French : 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Wiki_Loves_Women/Concours_d%27écriture/Résultats


Congrats everyone !

Anthere

Le 15/01/16 12:58, Florence Devouard a écrit :

The Wiki Love Women writing contest is now officially open !

Please join in to celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating to the
bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of
notable African women that are covered on Wikipedia.
The contest is also meant as a starting point of Wiki Loves Women, a
content liberation project related to Women in Africa.

We would love to see you participate to the writing contest !
If you want to, there are 3 ways to participate
* You want to create an article ? Please add your name here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Teams.
You may be solo, or you could seek the help of others to join your team.
Or you can join an already existing team. You must start a new article
(translation from another language is allowed). You have 15 days :)
* Or you may simply add suggestions for articles to write here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Articles_suggestions.
Of course, be careful of notability etc.
* Or you would be willing to join the jury. If so, please drop to the
page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Jury
to propose your help

It is all meant to be an easy going contest... no hassle... just for the
pleasure of working together on a theme still little covered on
Wikipedia (even after 15 years...)

Anthere and Isla


LINKS

The writing contest :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest

On meta : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Women_Writing_Contest

Wiki Loves Women website : http://www.wikiloveswomen.org (bear with
us... still very new)

Twitter #wikiloveswomen

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesWomen/


___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michael Peel]

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> kind of money.

I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being 
proposed here. Is it:
1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that easier 
for users of the sites to find
2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded 
sources into the mix
3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
... or somewhere on the scale between those points?

A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but 
(2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the reality?

Thanks,
Mike
___
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] Portal Improvements wiki page update

[Deborah Tankersley]

Hi all,

I've made multiple updates of text, images, ideas and more on the Wikipedia.org
portal improvements

page
on Meta, go check it out!

The page now displays what the Discovery Portal team has been working on this
quarter
:
what
minor improvements to the site that we've released into production and the
items we have coming up next. I've also updated the A/B test mocks

and
descriptions for clarity into our testing process.

Please let us know if there are any questions or concerns!

PS: I'm resending this email out to add the Wikitech-ambassadors email
list. :)


Cheers,

Deb

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Pete Forsyth]

These seem like reasonable ideas, Teemu, and I don't in any way oppose
them. It sounds, however, like they would go through different channels at
WMF (such as the grants programs, and/or business partnerships) than the
Elsevier and JSTOR programs did. Nothing wrong with that, but I wanted to
be clear what it is we're talking about.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 15, 2016 11:08 AM, "Leinonen Teemu"  wrote:

> > On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> > partnering with PLoS?
>
> I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that
> is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
>
> I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because
> they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as
> we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their
> financial situation).
>
> - Teemu
> --
> Teemu Leinonen
> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> +358 50 351 6796
> Media Lab
> http://mlab.uiah.fi
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture
> --
>
> ___
> 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] Elsevier?

[Michael Peel]

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:08, Leinonen Teemu  wrote:
> 
>> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
>> partnering with PLoS?
> 
> I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is 
> not so well known as the Wikipedia. 
> 
> I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because 
> they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we 
> have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial 
> situation). 

PLoS's 2014 income was $48.5 million:
https://www.plos.org/about/financials/
I'm not sure that they're short of financial support...

Thanks,
Mike
___
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] Elsevier?

[Leinonen Teemu]

> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> partnering with PLoS?

I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is 
not so well known as the Wikipedia. 

I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because they 
are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we have 
(and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial 
situation). 

- Teemu 
--
Teemu Leinonen
http://teemuleinonen.fi
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
Aalto University 
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
--

___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Leila Zia]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
> for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
> I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
> quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
> the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
> suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
> multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
>

​Pete, I suggest you reach out to Siko and talk to her directly if you want
to learn more about what she referred to in her email. Only she can explain
to you, if she chooses to, what specific issues led her to feel a specific
way towards her position in the Foundation. Trying to pick up signals is
very tricky as there are some signals here and there, but there are also a
lot of noise. If Siko chooses not to speak further, I suggest not
speculating. If Siko chooses to explain more, I suggest talking directly to
the individual(s) who are responsible for the practices that have concerned
Siko. Only by hearing all sides of the story you can get close to a true
understanding of the problem. (I acknowledge that this will be a very time
consuming approach for everyone involved, but if you want to know the
truth, there is no other way.)
 ​
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation


> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
> is
> > still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> > considerably.
> >
> > The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
> that
> > she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> > job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
> a
> > lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> > the sum of all knowledge.
> >
> > Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
> of
> > the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> > not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
> he
> > has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
> not
> > follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> > described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Lila,
> > >
> > > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
> Wales
> > > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> > the
> > > words in the application itself.
> > >
> > > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> > Siko
> > > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > Quotes:
> > >
> > > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> > "be
> > > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
> any
> > > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> > total
> > > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > >  and etiquette
> > > , and see if we can
> > > collaborate
> > > to build a consensus  on
> the
> > > WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality
> content
> > > and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
> > >
> > > "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that
> will
> > > give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> > > channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
> > systems
> > > to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> > > application, August 2015

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you harp on things that do not truly matter, you get the wrong
results. It is not search that you are after, it is about aligning the
needs you feel about communication and openness and the lack of trust you
feel towards the WMF. I care about both. However, when Lila was hired it
was communicated loud and clear that the WMF would become more of an
organisation that would technically enable our projects. That in essence
means a change of culture. My appreciation is that this has not been really
taken on board by many and given the unfortunate changes at the board there
is a lack of trust in what is happening at the moment. It has been getting
towards a flash point for some time.

The whole thing with the Knight Foundation is what this flashpoint is
focused on and, it is a fight that will only have losers. When we have a
conversation of what kind of organisation we are, then fine. If we are to
be more activist, I want our endowment fund only to invest in green energy
to offset the harm that is done by using the electricity that is generated
by dirty sources. We hide behind our hosting company because it uses dirty
energy (and forget that we can offset that anyway somewhere else).

So what will it be, continue talk about things that are not the real issue
and fail or talk about what it is, where we really hurt. Trust in the
acceptance that the WMF and its board may be brave and do their job and
when this trust has broken down, what we can do to come to a workable and
acceptable continuation of what we do.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 15 February 2016 at 19:19, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
> for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
> I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
> quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
> the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
> suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
> multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
>
> But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been
> honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge
> Engine. That is my concern here.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
> is
> > still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> > considerably.
> >
> > The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
> that
> > she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> > job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
> a
> > lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> > the sum of all knowledge.
> >
> > Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
> of
> > the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> > not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
> he
> > has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
> not
> > follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> > described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Lila,
> > >
> > > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
> Wales
> > > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> > the
> > > words in the application itself.
> > >
> > > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> > Siko
> > > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > Quotes:
> > >
> > > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> > "be
> > > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
> any
> > > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> > total
> > > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pete Forsyth]

Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)

But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been
honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge
Engine. That is my concern here.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is
> still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> considerably.
>
> The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that
> she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a
> lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> the sum of all knowledge.
>
> Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of
> the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he
> has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not
> follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Lila,
> >
> > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> the
> > words in the application itself.
> >
> > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> Siko
> > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > Quotes:
> >
> > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> "be
> > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> total
> > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> >
> > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> >  and etiquette
> > , and see if we can
> > collaborate
> > to build a consensus  on the
> > WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> > and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
> >
> > "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> > give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> > channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
> systems
> > to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> > application, August 2015
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> > On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gnangarra,
> > >
> > > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
> confused
> > > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> > this.
> > > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> > >
> > > Lila
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > FYI making main stream media
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > > >
> > > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> > say
> > > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > > expecting
> > > > > some kind of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How WMF contracts are won

[Quim Gil]

Hi, today it's a holiday for US-based WMF employees, so let me add the
information already public while a more complete reply arrives:

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Dear Jaime Villagomez, I have a question about a small example of
> procurement governance that I hope you can help with as the WMF CFO,
>
> QUESTION
> Can you please publish the specification of work used to support
> contract review by WMF Finance and WMF Legal for the work placed with
> Valerie Aurora and Ashe Snyder, and confirm how many other suppliers
> were given the opportunity to bid for the work?
>
> Though it is healthy that the WMF support their management team to
> make local decisions on resourcing, I am concerned that an informal
> and undocumented way of potentially selecting friends or old
> colleagues as suppliers has become a tacitly accepted default for
> placing WMF project contracts, rather than ensuring open bid processes
> with independently verifiable good governance. This appears to
> contradict the WMF Finance commitment to "core values of transparency
> and accountability".
>
> BACKGROUND
> During discussion of the proposed Code of Conduct for Wikimedia
> Technical spaces[1], it was stated that Valerie Aurora and Ashe Snyder
>

Ashe Dryden (the mistake is originally mine)


> had been given contracts for "expert advice". I asked to see the
> invitation to tender.


I replied at
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACode_of_Conduct%2FDraft=revision=2037073=2037016
-- text pasted here for convenience:

The two contracts have small budgets covering an amount of hours of
consulting. They were organized by me as part of my responsibility as
Engineering Community Manager, checking with the Code of Conduct promoters
and the Wikimedia Developer Summit organizers (Valerie helped us
co-organizing this event as well). I followed the normal WMF procedures for
contracting vendor services, going through WMF Finance and Legal review as
well as approval by my manager. Both consultants are recognized experts in
their field and are fit for the tasks requested.

The rest of the discussion can be found at
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACode_of_Conduct%2FDraft=revision=2036963=2032329

See also

* https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90908#1859995 + following comments,
and my summary for the Developer Relations quarterly review
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90908#1927563


> The question has since been hidden from view,
> without a confirmation that a specification for the work was written
> before the contracts were offered, nor has any statement been made
> about how much money will be paid for the (unspecified) review work.
> As far as I can tell, no expert advice by Aurora or Snyder has yet
> been made public, even though the Code of Conduct was intended to be
> created using open community processes. Quim Gil wrote "Feel free to
> continue via email or elsewhere", so I am posing the question as an
> open letter by email, asking again on-wiki appears now impossible.
>
> The WMF policy for procurement states that "Purchases that involve
> contracts need to go through contract review", and Quim Gil has
> confirmed that "I followed the normal WMF procedures for contracting
> vendor services, going through WMF Finance and Legal review as well as
> approval by my manager". Without a specification for the work, a
> meaningful contract review is impossible.
>
> It should be a mandatory requirement in professional procurement
> policies for all contracts to have a signed off statement of work,
> before contract are agreed, and only in exceptional pre-defined
> circumstances (such as contract extensions or applying formal
> preferred supplier lists) should the management team be allowed to
> place contracts with people they may happen to know, without an
> opportunity for anyone else to fairly bid for the work.
>
> I have asked for the specification of work to be published, ideally
> the budget should be published so there is better awareness of how
> much is normal for "expert advice". As the advice must be published to
> be useful, as the Code of Conduct is a public consultation, there can
> be no reason of privacy or confidentiality that applies.
>
> Links
> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft
>
> P.S. as Jaime Villagomez, WMF Chief Financial Officer has no published
> email address that I can track down, I have copied this email to Lila,
> CEO.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>



-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
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] Elsevier?

[geni]

On 15 February 2016 at 16:07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Teemu,
> These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are
> about giving volunteers access to closed sources.
>
> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> partnering with PLoS?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]


Probably none. DOAJ on the other hand. I'm less convinced of DOAJ's
financial soundness and its loss would be unfortunate. I've lost track of
the current PR line over whatever we are currently calling the knowledge
engine but if they are still going for the searching for reliable
information line DOAJ would be an obvious place to deploy it (well mostly.
This got into their database some how
https://doaj.org/article/ebed893bfc3748d58695b2851c8270e9 ).



-- 
geni
___
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] Elsevier?

[Leila Zia]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

>
> As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
> policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
> higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
> volunteer good will.


Just want to point out that the WMF has an Open Access policy
. This policy does
not immediately impact the current discussion since it's focused on
where/how research supported by the Foundation should be published, but
it's a strong step in the right direction.​


> I personally think that we are making a big mistake
> thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
>

​You are not alone. We live in an ecosystem and our long term success
depends on the success of others in this ecosystem, such as the OA
movement.

Leila

--
​​Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
​


>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> > from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> > Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> > paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> > having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have
> it,
> > at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> > can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
> make
> > it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
> >
> > If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
> available,
> > our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> > to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
> system
> > is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple
> ways.
> > Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> > advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
> >  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> > what will be best for the encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Shani,
> > >
> > > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
> last
> > > year and directly addresses this issue:
> > >
> > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > >
> > > ~ Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> > on
> > > > the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > > >
> > > > Shani.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > > (from
> > > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> > posts
> > > > and
> > > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > > (which
> > > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > > >
> > > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > > been
> > > > a
> > > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> > and
> > > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > > (entities
> > > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > > this
> > > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
> that
> > > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> > overturn
> > > > an
> > > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > > volunteers
> > > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract:
> those
> > > who
> > > > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
> > and
> > > > are
> > > > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked
> in
> > > > with
> > > > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > > > >
> > > > > -Pete
> > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
> relation
> > > with
> > > > > > them."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of
> many,
> > > > > > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is
still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
considerably.

The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that
she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a
lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
the sum of all knowledge.

Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of
the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he
has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not
follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
Thanks,
  GerardM
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Lila,
>
> The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
> words in the application itself.
>
> I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
> questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> willful lies that came to mind for me.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> Quotes:
>
> "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
>  and etiquette
> , and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus  on the
> WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
>
> "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
> to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> application, August 2015
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> > memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would
> mean
> > > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> > grant
> > > > of
> > > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
> agree
> > > to
> > > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
> > and
> > > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > > informed
> > > > > that a grant has been 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pete Forsyth]

Lila,

The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
words in the application itself.

I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
willful lies that came to mind for me.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

Quotes:

"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946

"Let’s all treat each other withcivility
 and etiquette
, and see if we can collaborate
to build a consensus  on the
WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201

"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:

> Hi Gnangarra,
>
> Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this.
> Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
>
> Lila
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > FYI making main stream media
> >
> >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> >
> > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > expecting
> > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> memo. I
> > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
> > can
> > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> > > course.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> grant
> > > of
> > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
> > to
> > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
> and
> > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > informed
> > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > situation
> > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even
> if
> > > they
> > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case,
> we're
> > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10
> million?
> > > >
> > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
> consulted
> > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we
> don't
> > > know
> > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> > $100,000
> > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > possibly
> > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
> value
> > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > > seems a
> > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
> > be
> > > > > *advised

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Search is relatively stand alone. It has been improved in the past. As it
is, there are gaping holes that are easily fixed with a hack by Magnus.
Search for instance on the Tamil Wikipedia for an English Wikipedia article
only or for an American like Valerie Simpson that does not.

Improving search does not have the same impact that the editor has. The
quality as it is poor to say the least. How for instance do you find
pictures of a 'paard' the windmill thingie? The notion that something has
to be done in a particular way is imho a knee jerk reaction. We do not
fulfil our mission; sharing in the sum of all knowledge, we do not even
begin to share what is available to us.

Has the community ever decided that search is any good? Really, it has
improved a lot over the years but it is still poor and we can use the money
of the Knight foundation to do a better job. It needs to be exponentially
better.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 17:13, Steinsplitter Wiki <
steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:

> Regarding
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
>
> Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We
> need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the
> community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full
>  consultation with the community consensus.
>
> 
>
> Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code?
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800
> > From: l...@wikimedia.org
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and
> grant  offer?
> >
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would
> mean
> > > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> grant
> > > > of
> > > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
> agree
> > > to
> > > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
> time and
> > > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > > informed
> > > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > > situation
> > > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
> even if
> > > > they
> > > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case,
> we're
> > > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10
> million?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
> consulted
> > > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we
> don't
> > > > know
> > > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
> granted.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> > > $100,000
> > > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > > possibly
> > > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
> value
> > > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > > > seems a
> > > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > *advised
> > > > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively
> contemplated or
> > > > > > prepared.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anthony Cole
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 

[Wikimedia-l] How WMF contracts are won

[Fæ]

Dear Jaime Villagomez, I have a question about a small example of
procurement governance that I hope you can help with as the WMF CFO;

QUESTION
Can you please publish the specification of work used to support
contract review by WMF Finance and WMF Legal for the work placed with
Valerie Aurora and Ashe Snyder, and confirm how many other suppliers
were given the opportunity to bid for the work?

Though it is a reasonable decision that the WMF support their
management team to make local decisions on resourcing, I am concerned
that an informal and undocumented way of potentially selecting friends
or old colleagues as suppliers has become a tacitly accepted default
for placing WMF project contracts, rather than ensuring open bid
processes with independently verifiable good governance. This appears
to contradict the WMF Finance commitment to "core values of
transparency and accountability".

BACKGROUND
During discussion of the proposed Code of Conduct for Wikimedia
Technical spaces[1], it was stated that Valerie Aurora and Ashe Snyder
had been given contracts for "expert advice". I asked to see the
invitation to tender. The question has since been hidden from view,
without a confirmation that a specification for the work was written
before the contracts were offered, nor has any statement been made
about how much money will be paid for the (unspecified) review work.
As far as I can tell, no expert advice by Aurora or Snyder has yet
been made public, even though the Code of Conduct was intended to be
created using open community processes. Quim Gil wrote "Feel free to
continue via email or elsewhere", so I am posing the question as an
open letter by email, asking again on-wiki appears now impossible.

The WMF policy for procurement states that "Purchases that involve
contracts need to go through contract review", and Quim Gil has
confirmed that "I followed the normal WMF procedures for contracting
vendor services, going through WMF Finance and Legal review as well as
approval by my manager". Without a specification for the work, a
meaningful contract review is impossible.

It should be a mandatory requirement in professional procurement
policies for all contracts to have a signed off statement of work,
before contract are agreed, and only in exceptional pre-defined
circumstances (such as contract extensions or applying formal
preferred supplier lists) should the management team be allowed to
place contracts with people they may happen to know, without an
opportunity for anyone else to fairly bid for the work.

I have asked for the specification of work to be published, ideally
the budget should be published so there is better awareness of how
much is normal for "expert advice". As the advice must be published to
be useful, as the Code of Conduct is a public consultation, there can
be no reason of privacy or confidentiality that applies.

Links 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft

P.S. as Jaime Villagomez, WMF Chief Financial Officer has no published
email address that I can track down, I have copied this letter to
Lila, CEO and Quim Gil.

Thanks,
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles

Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We 
need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the 
community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full
 consultation with the community consensus.



Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code?


> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800
> From: l...@wikimedia.org
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant  
> offer?
> 
> Hi Gnangarra,
> 
> Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this.
> Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> 
> Lila
> 
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> > FYI making main stream media
> >
> >
> > http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> >
> > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > expecting
> > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
> > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
> > can
> > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> > > course.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
> > > of
> > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
> > to
> > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > informed
> > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > situation
> > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
> > > they
> > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
> > > >
> > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't
> > > know
> > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> > $100,000
> > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > possibly
> > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > > seems a
> > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
> > be
> > > > > *advised
> > > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > > > > prepared.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony Cole
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
> > would
> > > > like
> > > > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
> > > and
> > > > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
> > > large
> > > > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
> > > closely
> > > > > with
> > > > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
> > > of
> > > > > its
> > > > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > > > organization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.
> > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
> > > the
> > > > > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> > > > acceptance
> > > > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
> > they
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Pete Forsyth]

Teemu,
These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are
about giving volunteers access to closed sources.

Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
partnering with PLoS?
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 15, 2016 7:58 AM, "Leinonen Teemu"  wrote:

> Hi Alex and all,
>
> I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
>
> https://www.plos.org
>
> - Teemu
>
> > On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
> > research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe
> that
> > our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
> > or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
> > open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
> > links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our
> position.
> >
> > As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80
> accounts
> > so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
> > over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
> >
> > These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and
> cultivate,
> > because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
> > volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their
> business
> > practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
> > (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
> > boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
> > volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as
> long
> > as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
> > other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks
> at
> > least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
> > projects.
> >
> > However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
> > access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
> > industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going
> to
> > be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
> > traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
> > referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
> > industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be
> able
> > to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
> > allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
> >
> > As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
> > perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would
> be
> > happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our
> research
> > processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
> > institutions that work within the existing system to help create
> long-term
> > stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
> > libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
> > supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
> > open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
> > months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
> > change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to
> figure
> > out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
> > academic work.[4]
> >
> > As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
> > Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
> > through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
> > promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Alex Stinson
> > Project Manager
> > The Wikipedia Library
> >
> >
> > [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
> > [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
> > [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing.
> For
> > example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
> > instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
> > maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
> > available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
> > fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
> > output of those academics:
> >
> http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf
> > . Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who
> > worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open
> > access journals undermined his copyright and the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem with Elsevier is that it requires a project for people to gain
access. With PLOS we do not need to partner because everybody can have all
the access that they need.

The biggest problem that I see with many sources is that many of them are
no longer valid. They point they make has been refuted and sometimes even
worse it has been proven a fraud. That is the bigger problem with closed
source. You have to pay to read what it says and only then you may realise
that it is no good. In the mean time the puffery goes on.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 16:57, Leinonen Teemu 
wrote:

> Hi Alex and all,
>
> I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
>
> https://www.plos.org
>
> - Teemu
>
> > On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
> > research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe
> that
> > our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
> > or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
> > open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
> > links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our
> position.
> >
> > As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80
> accounts
> > so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
> > over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
> >
> > These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and
> cultivate,
> > because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
> > volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their
> business
> > practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
> > (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
> > boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
> > volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as
> long
> > as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
> > other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks
> at
> > least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
> > projects.
> >
> > However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
> > access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
> > industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going
> to
> > be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
> > traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
> > referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
> > industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be
> able
> > to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
> > allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
> >
> > As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
> > perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would
> be
> > happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our
> research
> > processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
> > institutions that work within the existing system to help create
> long-term
> > stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
> > libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
> > supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
> > open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
> > months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
> > change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to
> figure
> > out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
> > academic work.[4]
> >
> > As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
> > Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
> > through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
> > promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Alex Stinson
> > Project Manager
> > The Wikipedia Library
> >
> >
> > [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
> > [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
> > [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing.
> For
> > example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
> > instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
> > maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
> > available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
> > fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
> > output of those academics:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Leinonen Teemu]

Hi Alex and all, 

I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS? 

https://www.plos.org 

- Teemu

> On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
> research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe that
> our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
> or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
> open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
> links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our position.
> 
> As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80 accounts
> so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
> over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
> 
> These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and cultivate,
> because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
> volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their business
> practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
> (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
> boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
> volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as long
> as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
> other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks at
> least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
> projects.
> 
> However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
> access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
> industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going to
> be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
> traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
> referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
> industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be able
> to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
> allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
> 
> As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
> perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would be
> happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our research
> processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
> institutions that work within the existing system to help create long-term
> stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
> libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
> supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
> open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
> months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
> change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to figure
> out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
> academic work.[4]
> 
> As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
> Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
> through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
> promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex Stinson
> Project Manager
> The Wikipedia Library
> 
> 
> [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
> [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
> [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing. For
> example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
> instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
> maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
> available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
> fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
> output of those academics:
> http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf
> . Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who
> worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open
> access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his
> publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from
> making Open Access, as a long-term solution for academic publishing.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Shani  wrote:
> 
>> Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
>> the issue.
>> 
>> Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
>> 
>> Shani.
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> As the panel moderator, I felt there 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Alex Stinson]

Hi all,

As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe that
our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our position.

As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80 accounts
so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
over 500 accounts via JSTOR.

These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and cultivate,
because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their business
practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
(editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as long
as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks at
least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
projects.

However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going to
be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be able
to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.

As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would be
happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our research
processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
institutions that work within the existing system to help create long-term
stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to figure
out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
academic work.[4]

As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.

Cheers,

Alex Stinson
Project Manager
The Wikipedia Library


[1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
[3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
[4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing. For
example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
output of those academics:
http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf
. Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who
worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open
access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his
publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from
making Open Access, as a long-term solution for academic publishing.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Shani  wrote:

> Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
> the issue.
>
> Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
>
> Shani.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
>> As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from
>> the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts
>> and
>> discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which
>> is certainly an important piece.
>>
>> A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have been a
>> good one, there may also have been better ways to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive)]

Dear Siko,
Sad to read your mail. Thanks for your work & good luck.

-Hasive
WMBD

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Le 12/02/16 02:24, Siko Bouterse a écrit :
>
>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>>
>> I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff
>> capacity
>> for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at
>> the
>> Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
>> important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
>> values in a volunteer capacity at this time.
>>
>
> Siko... I was sad to read about your departure.
>
> And like Pete, I noted your words.
>
> It is yet another crumb in a trail of worrying elements : the (too)
> numerous departures within staff, the staff survey, the recent board
> members cases, some staff members mentionning threats when expressing
> publicly their opinion, the change of tone in the glassdoor reports, the
> Knight grant, and so on. It is worrysome.
>
> Florence
>
> I am and will always remain a
>
>> Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
>> hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.
>>
>> This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly
>> honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
>> to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
>> experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
>> Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some
>> really
>> incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
>> organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.
>>
>> I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence
>> in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
>> and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
>> needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.
>>
>> Much love,
>> Siko
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
User: Hasive  |
GSM/WhatsApp/Viber: +8801712754752
​
Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia 
Member | GAC Committee, Wikimedia Foundation

Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation

Director | Wikimedia Bangladesh Operations Committee

fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
 | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi Gnangarra,

Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.

Lila

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> FYI making main stream media
>
>
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
>
> On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> expecting
> > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
> > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
> can
> > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> > course.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
> > of
> > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
> to
> > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> informed
> > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> situation
> > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
> > they
> > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
> > >
> > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't
> > know
> > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > >
> > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> $100,000
> > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> possibly
> > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > seems a
> > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
> be
> > > > *advised
> > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > > > prepared.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
> would
> > > like
> > > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
> > and
> > > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
> > large
> > > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
> > closely
> > > > with
> > > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
> > of
> > > > its
> > > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > > organization.
> > > > >
> > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
> > the
> > > > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> > > acceptance
> > > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
> they
> > > > should
> > > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> > > applications
> > > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > > > believe
> > > > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > > > notification,
> > > > > though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
> > us
> > > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid
> to
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> > > were
> > > > > not
> > > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Àlex Hinojo]

+1 to Aubrey's words

2016-02-15 7:59 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni :

> As much as I love Jake and Alex's work,
> and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge
> that
> "playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything.
> Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they
> play along, keeping the system alive and well.
>
> Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly
> that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with
> a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also
> that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.
>
> As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
> policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
> higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
> volunteer good will. I personally think that we are making a big mistake
> thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> > from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> > Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> > paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> > having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have
> it,
> > at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> > can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
> make
> > it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
> >
> > If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
> available,
> > our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> > to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
> system
> > is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple
> ways.
> > Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> > advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
> >  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> > what will be best for the encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Shani,
> > >
> > > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
> last
> > > year and directly addresses this issue:
> > >
> > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > >
> > > ~ Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> > on
> > > > the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > > >
> > > > Shani.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > > (from
> > > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> > posts
> > > > and
> > > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > > (which
> > > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > > >
> > > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > > been
> > > > a
> > > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> > and
> > > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > > (entities
> > > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > > this
> > > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
> that
> > > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> > overturn
> > > > an
> > > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > > volunteers
> > > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract:
> those
> > > who
> > > > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
> > and
> > > > are
> > > > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked
> in
> > > > with
> > > > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > > > >
> > > > > -Pete
> > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
> relation
> > > with
> > > > > > them."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of
> many,
> > > > > > including myself,