Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board level strategic planning?

[Christophe Henner]

Hi,

I love to write long emails, but four in a row would too much.

As said before we are taking up our leadership role.

The strategy process *is* a black box right now. We (Katherine mostly) have
been working on the process for a few weeks.
We will share soon I hope, the first part of that process.

I would just ask you a little time, it has only been a month that Katherine
and I have been in our current positions. Even if works was started before
that, decisions to move forward with a movement strategy is only a month
old.

And as said before, this year we are focusing on building the foundations
we need to get Wikimedia Foundation in a better place. So, basicly, we
won't go down to the feature level and focus on th global level :)

Happy to talk on that topic :)

Le 2 août 2016 7:19 AM, "Joseph Seddon"  a écrit :

> Hey Pine,
>
> The Wikimedia Endowment is specifically set up to
>
> *"act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the
> operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity". [1]*
>
> The Endowment acts as the online projects safety net. It will be
> independent of the Wikimedia Foundation board and importantly It's not
> there to support the WMF in perpetuity, it's the Wikimedia projects. Even
> if the WMF is likely to be the main benefactor from the fund; should, in
> the eyes of the Endowment Advisory Board, the WMF be no longer a fit and
> appropriate body to support the Wikimedia projects (as a result of legal,
> fiduciary or other issues), it has the ability to provide fund to an
> alternative organisation to fulfill that work.
>
> Regards
>
> Seddon
>
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Establishment_of_Endowment
>
>
>
> > * WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
> > affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate
> > dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if
> we
> > have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and
> > community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the
> viability
> > of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many
> > ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political
> > environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure even
> > if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again
> > have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but it
> > would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community to
> > continue whether or not WMF is with us.
> >
> > Thanks again for your post.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *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 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] Board level strategic planning?

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey Pine,

The Wikimedia Endowment is specifically set up to

*"act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the
operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity". [1]*

The Endowment acts as the online projects safety net. It will be
independent of the Wikimedia Foundation board and importantly It's not
there to support the WMF in perpetuity, it's the Wikimedia projects. Even
if the WMF is likely to be the main benefactor from the fund; should, in
the eyes of the Endowment Advisory Board, the WMF be no longer a fit and
appropriate body to support the Wikimedia projects (as a result of legal,
fiduciary or other issues), it has the ability to provide fund to an
alternative organisation to fulfill that work.

Regards

Seddon

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Establishment_of_Endowment



> * WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
> affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate
> dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if we
> have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and
> community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the viability
> of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many
> ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political
> environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure even
> if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again
> have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but it
> would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community to
> continue whether or not WMF is with us.
>
> Thanks again for your post.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*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] Board level strategic planning?

[Pine W]

Thanks Ben.

Just a few comments:

* The WMF Board has limited bandwidth, and they have a lot on their agenda
right now. I'm not sure how much of strategic work they can do while also
handling their other priorities, so some dependence on the ED is likely
necessary.

* Some members of the WMF Board have voiced the feeling that they would
like the Board to have a leading role rather than a reactionary one. It
looks to me like the governance review could be considered a step in this
direction. Having the Board take a public and leading role in developing
strategy with a transparent and thoughtful approach would be great to see,
so +1 to your comments on this topic.

* I get the sense that both the current Board and Katherine are trying to
take a responsive and cooperative approach to community input, so I am
cautiously optimistic that in the big picture WMF is heading in a good
direction.

Comments about specifics of strategic planning:

* One of my current concerns is the usability of Wikimedia sites for both
readers and contributors; we have some powerful tools but our usability
leaves much to be desired, and fixing an approximately 10 to 15 year design
and features deficit might require a lot more design and engineering
resources than WMF can recruit with its current income streams. I am
hopeful that WMF can boost its design and engineering capacity while
maintaining good relations with the community, and also while investing
more resources in developing GLAM+STEM and other offline support of
affiliate programs that have good cost-benefit ratios.

* WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate
dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if we
have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and
community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the viability
of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many
ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political
environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure even
if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again
have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but it
would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community to
continue whether or not WMF is with us.

Thanks again for your post.

Regards,

Pine
___
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] Board level strategic planning?

[Ben Creasy]

I was glad to see this detailed note of an important gap in search, but it
left me wondering how the board views its role in strategic planning?

TL;DR: top-level prioritization should be done in a more public and
transparent manner, probably with more board input

Historically, it seems like the board has approached the strategic plan as
something to review after the plan is solidified rather than driving the
plan in a meaningful way. There is a bit of evidence that the board is
taking a more active role in planning in the 2016 Governance
recommendations [1], although it looks like it is being sent to the Audit
Committee, which I'm not sure I agree with.

In 2015, when the board opened up for Q&A questions at its noticeboard
[2], some
of the questions were around the board's view of specific issues. The only
board member who mostly responded deferred having any judgment on features
or software issues whatsoever. For example, someone questioned
Superprotect, with the board member responding: "I think that the super
protect feature is something that falls within the domain of our Executive
Director, whom I trust to have good judgment. I would personally never vote
for or against a specific feature of Mediawiki software, unless this is at
the specific request of the Executive Director, it simply is not our job"
...

Features like Visual Editor, Flow, or search improvements are voted on
whenever the budget comes up. It may be dressed up as "Editing" or
"Discovery", but it's basically about a large, long-term feature. And work
on these features is done at the cost of not working other items such as
features requested by editors (see Community Tech) or other stakeholders
(e.g., unclear how line-level employee feedback is rolled up).

When I was on the board of a couple nonprofits, we did relatively detailed
strategic planning. For example, the board decided it was important to
overhaul and modernize our website, and then we monitored progress on its
overhaul by staff over time. It wasn't easy to extract priorities from a
bunch of people with diverse opinions on what was worth doing, and staff
played a huge role in recommending and assembling these opinions into a
reasonably scoped plan which they ultimately executed. But the board took
ownership of the plan because they played a major part in its draft.

Historically, boards were the driver of major plans (see *Governance as
Leadership*, p4 [3]) but as nonprofits grew large, that role is often taken
by executive leadership.

It's up to the board to figure out how it wants to run the organization,
but I hope to see the board taking a stronger, more public role in
planning. Perhaps I just haven't read deeply enough, but the strategic
planning process seems like a black box right now. My hope is that board
members feel comfortable championing causes that they feel are important,
but also take time to champion the causes that are important to other
stakeholders, which can be discovered through well-designed research,
surveys, and anecdotes (like this search observation!). I do recall filling
out a survey on future WMF priorities a few months ago, but I don't recall
feeling altogether satisfied with it.

I feel bad about this wall of text.

Random postscripts:

When I was serving on boards, I read an interesting book called *Governance
as Leadership* which emphasized the somewhat fuzzy concept of "generative
thinking" which allows the board and executive team to partner effectively.
It also puts the history and typical roles that a board plays into context.

It's important to keep marginal cost and return on investment in mind. Even
Google continues to spend an enormous amount on search.

I work as a software developer in downtown San Francisco. A couple of my
friends work at privately-funded startups - ranging from 20 to 70 people -
where the employees literally vote on the company's direction. At my
company, the strategy is set by the executive team, where engineering hours
are allocated to various categories (new products, maintenance, internal
engineering). We do a lot of estimation to allow the product and executive
team to figure out what new features make sense, and a lot of the internal
engineering time goes into devops, refactoring and underlying architectural
improvements.

Sam Altman of Y Combinator noted: "The company will build what the CEO
measures". So if the board has a goal in mind, think carefully about the
metrics. [4]

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_Governance_Recommendations_(April_2016)
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2015#Submissions
[3]
https://smile.amazon.com/Governance-Leadership-Reframing-Nonprofit-Boards/dp/0471684201
[4] http://blog.samaltman.com/startup-advice-briefly

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:

> One risk of using Google to search Wikipedia is getting bad results. For
> several weeks, a Google search for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Farsi Wikipedia

[Katherine Maher]

This is wonderful, congratulations on all the hard work and achievement!

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Alex Wang  wrote:

> Congratulations!!!
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Amir Ladsgroup 
> wrote:
>
> > I talked to Mohsen earlier and convinced him it's Persian. I hope it uses
> > Persian more often :D
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:25 PM Shlomi Fish 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:40:12 +0430
> > > Mardetanha  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would to let everyone know, after 13 years and millions of edits,
> > > Finally
> > > > Farsi Wikipedia has reached 500,000 article. This is a very historic
> > > moment
> > > > for all us in Farsi Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Mardetanha
> > >
> > > Congratulations to the Persian Wikipedia contributors on reaching this
> > > landmark! Well done, and good luck in the future.
> > >
> > > One small nitpick if I may:
> > >
> > > http://behdad.org/farsi.html/
> > >
> > > “Persian is the English word for Farsi.”
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Shlomi Fish
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> > >
> > > *shlomif:* hack, hack, hack ; save ; make ; make test; commit. And
> start
> > > over.
> > >
> > > *mrjink:* hack, hack, hack; save; make; swear; fix typos; save; make;
> > make
> > > test; swear some more; hack some more; save; make; make test; cheer;
> > > commit.
> > >
> > > *meep:* hack, make, test, segfault, oh noes, revert to previous
> revision
> > >
> > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post -
> http://shlom.in/reply
> > .
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandra Wang
> Program Officer
> Community Resources
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> +1 415-839-6885
> Skype: alexvwang
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
___
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] Kevin Gorman has passed away

[Trillium Corsage]

When Kevin first became an administrator there was something he did that I 
found objectionable. It would be poor form to revisit that now, but I mention 
it to avoid making a saint of the guy. I had later glimpses of him and he 
seemed like a good guy.

He seemed overall like a kind human spirit and I'm sad that he's off to the 
next destination so soon.

By messages and his Facebook page he was an organ donor, and his heart is 
beating in some other person right now. Consider designating yourself as an 
organ donor, everyone, mark the option on your driver's license or 
identification.

Trillium Corsage


29.07.2016, 22:26, "Ed Erhart" :
> I regret to inform everyone that Kevin Gorman, a Wikipedian who was the
> first Wikipedian-in-residence at a US university or college, has passed
> away. There is a memorial page on Facebook, and editors are leaving
> condolences on his English Wikipedia talk page.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/bombus.memoriam/
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevin_Gorman
>
> Best,
> --Ed
> ___
> 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] Farsi Wikipedia

[Alex Wang]

Congratulations!!!

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Amir Ladsgroup 
wrote:

> I talked to Mohsen earlier and convinced him it's Persian. I hope it uses
> Persian more often :D
>
> Best
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:25 PM Shlomi Fish 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:40:12 +0430
> > Mardetanha  wrote:
> >
> > > I would to let everyone know, after 13 years and millions of edits,
> > Finally
> > > Farsi Wikipedia has reached 500,000 article. This is a very historic
> > moment
> > > for all us in Farsi Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Mardetanha
> >
> > Congratulations to the Persian Wikipedia contributors on reaching this
> > landmark! Well done, and good luck in the future.
> >
> > One small nitpick if I may:
> >
> > http://behdad.org/farsi.html/
> >
> > “Persian is the English word for Farsi.”
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Shlomi Fish
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> >
> > *shlomif:* hack, hack, hack ; save ; make ; make test; commit. And start
> > over.
> >
> > *mrjink:* hack, hack, hack; save; make; swear; fix typos; save; make;
> make
> > test; swear some more; hack some more; save; make; make test; cheer;
> > commit.
> >
> > *meep:* hack, make, test, segfault, oh noes, revert to previous revision
> >
> > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply
> .
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
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] Conference submissions now open for WikiConference North America

[Pine W]

WikiConference North America will take place October 7 through 10 in San
Diego.

The session tracks are:

1. Community
2. Advocacy & Outreach
3. Technology & Infrastructure
4. Health care and science
5. GLAM
6. Education and Academic Engagement

Please submit proposals here: https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions

The submission deadline is August 31st.

Pine
___
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] Slides and video of Wikimedia Foundation presentations at State of the Map US

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The talks are exactly the kind of things that are relevant to record. They
are about the subjects the WMF is about. My point is that it makes sense to
record them and have lists that are automatically updated wherever they are
wanted. That is my message. If is in line with what Pine wants; he wants us
to take notice of these presentations. They are easily forgotten and it is
why I propose this

This is part of an exchange where I was told to do more for "Wikimedia"
getting our message out having lists of relevant presentation will help us
on many levels. My question on this list was: do you think it makes sense
to have lists of relevant presentations like this.

This list is the Wikimedia list and it is for all our projects and for our
movement. It is therefore not exclusively Wikipedia or Commons. I have
indeed expressed my opinion often enough. When they relate to Wikidata I
express how Wikidata can make a positive difference for our projects, I
provide arguments why this is the case. When as you say you are not
interested, when you do not follow the arguments, when you do not ask, you
can not fault me for expressing them you cannot fault me for being wrong.

Back to the subject. We can have lists on recorded talks and presentations
(ppt) on the subjects that are relevant to us. My question is does it make
sense to have them and if so, I can provide you with lists of
presentations. I welcome suggestions to improve on the idea.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 1 August 2016 at 15:52, Fæ  wrote:

> Gerard, this email thread was not about Wikidata and John was right to
> make that clear, and link to the locus of debate behind your email.
>
> Over the last four years, to my frail memory, you often hijack email
> threads on this list to talk about Wikidata and attract attention to
> Wikidata debates. Maybe many Wikimedians feel that's a fine and useful
> thing to do, but from my point of view the apparent persistent
> lobbying put me off reading any further into almost all of the linked
> Wikidata discussions. I suspect this type of persistence puts other
> people off too, though perhaps other volunteers can offer you better
> advice on how to express your view without taking threads that had
> nothing to do with Wikidata into long and sometimes 'shouty' multiple
> emails about Wikidata.
>
> This is intended as frank feedback, not an attack. If it reads like
> the latter, my apologies for being unable to express myself more
> clearly.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 1 August 2016 at 14:22, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The point is not about people. It is about presentations given at
> > Wikimania. They represent the best effort at the time of a Wikimania and
> > are therefore highly relevant.
> >
> > I am sad that people like John misrepresent the issues at hand. They are
> > three:
> >
> >- are Wikimania talks relevant
> >- should consideration for Wikimedians be any different from the way
> we
> >treat other people
> >- is it ok for a Wikidata admin to delete a lot of content without any
> >discussion. At this time it is easy to observe that Wikidata do as
> they
> >please, they require of others big "community" efforts and easily do
> as
> >they please without considering the Wikidata policies.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 1 August 2016 at 09:31, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >>  wrote:
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > A question that is very much under discussion is if presentations like
> >> > these deserve a place at Wikidata. Given the subject and the
> relevancy of
> >> > our current state of mind on subjects like these it makes perfect
> sense.
> >> We
> >> > are already able to produce lists using the tools provided by Magnus
> to
> >> > update when new talks of a conference or on a subject are present.
> >> >
> >> > What do we think? Are presentations like these notable? Are the
> >> > presentations of Wikimania notable?
> >>
> >> Context for Gerard's post is:
> >>
> >>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Controversy_around_the_item_.22Wikimania_talk.22
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-July/009158.html
> >>
> >> I believe it is highly off-topic wrt the subject of this thread about
> >> Katherine's talk, which cant be compared with creating Wikidata items
> >> about non-notable Wikimedians simply because they presented at
> >> Wikimania.
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Vandenberg
> --
> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Slides and video of Wikimedia Foundation presentations at State of the Map US

[Fæ]

Gerard, this email thread was not about Wikidata and John was right to
make that clear, and link to the locus of debate behind your email.

Over the last four years, to my frail memory, you often hijack email
threads on this list to talk about Wikidata and attract attention to
Wikidata debates. Maybe many Wikimedians feel that's a fine and useful
thing to do, but from my point of view the apparent persistent
lobbying put me off reading any further into almost all of the linked
Wikidata discussions. I suspect this type of persistence puts other
people off too, though perhaps other volunteers can offer you better
advice on how to express your view without taking threads that had
nothing to do with Wikidata into long and sometimes 'shouty' multiple
emails about Wikidata.

This is intended as frank feedback, not an attack. If it reads like
the latter, my apologies for being unable to express myself more
clearly.

Thanks,
Fae

On 1 August 2016 at 14:22, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> The point is not about people. It is about presentations given at
> Wikimania. They represent the best effort at the time of a Wikimania and
> are therefore highly relevant.
>
> I am sad that people like John misrepresent the issues at hand. They are
> three:
>
>- are Wikimania talks relevant
>- should consideration for Wikimedians be any different from the way we
>treat other people
>- is it ok for a Wikidata admin to delete a lot of content without any
>discussion. At this time it is easy to observe that Wikidata do as they
>please, they require of others big "community" efforts and easily do as
>they please without considering the Wikidata policies.
>
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 1 August 2016 at 09:31, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>>  wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > A question that is very much under discussion is if presentations like
>> > these deserve a place at Wikidata. Given the subject and the relevancy of
>> > our current state of mind on subjects like these it makes perfect sense.
>> We
>> > are already able to produce lists using the tools provided by Magnus to
>> > update when new talks of a conference or on a subject are present.
>> >
>> > What do we think? Are presentations like these notable? Are the
>> > presentations of Wikimania notable?
>>
>> Context for Gerard's post is:
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Controversy_around_the_item_.22Wikimania_talk.22
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-July/009158.html
>>
>> I believe it is highly off-topic wrt the subject of this thread about
>> Katherine's talk, which cant be compared with creating Wikidata items
>> about non-notable Wikimedians simply because they presented at
>> Wikimania.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
-- 
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] Slides and video of Wikimedia Foundation presentations at State of the Map US

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The point is not about people. It is about presentations given at
Wikimania. They represent the best effort at the time of a Wikimania and
are therefore highly relevant.

I am sad that people like John misrepresent the issues at hand. They are
three:

   - are Wikimania talks relevant
   - should consideration for Wikimedians be any different from the way we
   treat other people
   - is it ok for a Wikidata admin to delete a lot of content without any
   discussion. At this time it is easy to observe that Wikidata do as they
   please, they require of others big "community" efforts and easily do as
   they please without considering the Wikidata policies.

Thanks,
 GerardM

On 1 August 2016 at 09:31, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > A question that is very much under discussion is if presentations like
> > these deserve a place at Wikidata. Given the subject and the relevancy of
> > our current state of mind on subjects like these it makes perfect sense.
> We
> > are already able to produce lists using the tools provided by Magnus to
> > update when new talks of a conference or on a subject are present.
> >
> > What do we think? Are presentations like these notable? Are the
> > presentations of Wikimania notable?
>
> Context for Gerard's post is:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Controversy_around_the_item_.22Wikimania_talk.22
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-July/009158.html
>
> I believe it is highly off-topic wrt the subject of this thread about
> Katherine's talk, which cant be compared with creating Wikidata items
> about non-notable Wikimedians simply because they presented at
> Wikimania.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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] Slides and video of Wikimedia Foundation presentations at State of the Map US

[Cornelius Kibelka]

in the meantime, both, slides and videos, were uploaded to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:State_of_the_Map_US_2016

Cheers,
Cornelius

On 1 August 2016 at 09:31, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > A question that is very much under discussion is if presentations like
> > these deserve a place at Wikidata. Given the subject and the relevancy of
> > our current state of mind on subjects like these it makes perfect sense.
> We
> > are already able to produce lists using the tools provided by Magnus to
> > update when new talks of a conference or on a subject are present.
> >
> > What do we think? Are presentations like these notable? Are the
> > presentations of Wikimania notable?
>
> Context for Gerard's post is:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Controversy_around_the_item_.22Wikimania_talk.22
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-July/009158.html
>
> I believe it is highly off-topic wrt the subject of this thread about
> Katherine's talk, which cant be compared with creating Wikidata items
> about non-notable Wikimedians simply because they presented at
> Wikimania.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Cornelius Kibelka
Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC), GHM
for the Wikimedia Conference

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
___
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] Slides and video of Wikimedia Foundation presentations at State of the Map US

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> A question that is very much under discussion is if presentations like
> these deserve a place at Wikidata. Given the subject and the relevancy of
> our current state of mind on subjects like these it makes perfect sense. We
> are already able to produce lists using the tools provided by Magnus to
> update when new talks of a conference or on a subject are present.
>
> What do we think? Are presentations like these notable? Are the
> presentations of Wikimania notable?

Context for Gerard's post is:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Controversy_around_the_item_.22Wikimania_talk.22
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata/2016-July/009158.html

I believe it is highly off-topic wrt the subject of this thread about
Katherine's talk, which cant be compared with creating Wikidata items
about non-notable Wikimedians simply because they presented at
Wikimania.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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,