Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

[Nathan]

It looks like there are many chapters and orgs at risk of being denied a
renewal. I'm curious about how you decided who to label non-compliant and
who you did not.

I notice that WM Armenia appears to have had no reports or activity (other
than 2015 wrap up information) in 2016. Are they considered up to date
because they provided a report for activities the year before last? Not to
pick on Amernia, it's just the first example I encountered. The chapter
provided consistent monthly reports from 2013 to 2015, but not one since.
They also posted a financial statement and an auditor's report for 2015,
which link to the same 3 page PDF. The brief financial statement, which is
not finely detailed, suggests that travel expenses account for nearly all
expenditures.

Maor, if you have a link to a document or page which explains the standards
being applied to chapters and orgs, and which might illuminate why WM AM is
in compliance but others are not, I would appreciate it!

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Nathan]

I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not
about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the
mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the
WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that
the process of making such statements should include consulting the
community.

But some have claimed that Katherine's free speech right entitles her to
opine on the WMF's behalf without restriction, and multiple others have
recently asked the WMF to get involved in other political or advocacy work
that is outside the scope of the WMF mission. I object to these on the
principle that the WMF is not a vehicle for the general political beliefs
of its employees, management, readers or even volunteers. It has committed
itself to a mission, and its activities and voice should maintain focus on
that mission without allowing itself to be distracted by the worlds many
other problems.

Its  surely easy for those who find nearly complete political and cultural
accord with WMF staffers to be comfortable with their political statements
on behalf of the movement. But the WMF should take care not to court a
backlash from outside the bubble by embracing such activity beyond the
reasonable confines of its raison d'etre.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:


What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner.

On 01/27/2017 09:54 AM, Danny Horn wrote:

Your idea for using aggression/harassment scores in admin applications is
really interesting; I hadn't thought of that before. Nothing's actually
planned right now, just research and conversations, but it's neat to see
people already coming up with interesting suggestions. :)
I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the 
core of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a 
technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill 
battle, but I feel strongly that it's the right way to go. I'd like to 
highlight my first answer in my brief candidacy for the WMF board in 
2015 [1]:

The distinction between "the community" and "newcomers" is a false and dangerously misleading one. It does not 
accurately reflect reality. I have had numerous students, clients, and friends who believe "the community" or 
"Wikipedia" was unwelcoming; but on closer inspection, the one comment that formed that opinion in fact came from somebody who 
was newer than "the newbie." If civility and collegiality on our sites is an issue -- and it is -- the artificial idea that 
"the community" is mean, and in need of reform, will not move us toward a solution.

Yes, this is a matter the Board should take very seriously. The Board should 
seek the guidance of social scientists and experienced practitioners in social 
movements. Lecturing and assigning blame (example: [2]) may bring applause and 
headlines, but it will not lead to solutions. The solution to this kind of 
problem lies in studying what works well in our communities and others, and 
cultivating leadership. Social practices are a good medium for spreading social 
solutions; we should be more skeptical of technical approaches.


I elaborated on what I see as the WMF's problematic cultivation of a 
culture of blame and exclusion in a blog post. [3]


Coincidentally, the most interesting idea I'm aware of in this realm 
comes from a former Wikia employee I know named...Danny Horn, who 
invented a system to facilitate rapid introductions between new and 
experienced users. It's one we might do well to try out on Wikimedia 
projects, perhaps in connection with the Teahouse.


-Pete

[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/2015_board_election_Peteforsyth_answers#Behavior_towards_new_editors


[2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Wales_at_Wikimania_2014_closing_ceremony_-_annoying_user_good_content_%28cropped%29.jpg


[3] https://wikistrategies.net/divide-and-subjugate/




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Erik Moeller]

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> (2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and
> after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than
> the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone
> for free. We are not a neutral enterprise, and we never have been.

Indeed not. I agree with Mike's entire post. WMF must speak out
against threats that directly impact its ability to serve its mission.
Sometimes it will be able to do so in concert with community action
(as in the case of SOPA/PIPA), sometimes it will be acting on its own
behalf. The WMF blog is exactly the right place for the latter type of
expression.

The revocation of some 60,000 visas [1] and implementation of a travel
ban targeting a religious group is precisely the type of action that
directly impacts WMF's ability to do its work. To frame this simply as
a matter of refugee policy misunderstands the nature of the executive
order [2], which also bars other visa holders from targeted countries.

The WMF is committed to internationalism and diversity through its
policies [3], through its long-standing participation in international
outreach programs like Google Summer of Code, through hosting,
supporting and participating in events all around the world, and --
most importantly -- through its mission and vision statement which are
global in scope and aspiration.

To make clear that it is opposed to this obvious violation of human
rights with all the consequences it has already entailed (regardless
of the possibly temporary suspension of the ban) is _precisely_ what
we should expect from WMF. We should object if it had _not_ issued a
statement. To frame this within the terms of the neutrality of the
encyclopedia is a mistake. The encyclopedia is neutral; the WMF most
definitely cannot be when its ability to do its work is threatened,
_especially_ in the jurisdiction within which it operates.

While I agree that it's important to define the boundaries of WMF's
political expression, I see its statement on EO 13769 as clearly
within any rational such definition that is consistent with its
mission and vision.

Erik

[1] 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-10-visas-revoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

[3] 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pluralism,_internationalism,_and_diversity_policy

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

[Joseph Fox]

It looks like the page Maor refers to near the end there is this one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports

Joe

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 at 15:06 Maor Malul  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
> or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission.
> While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards
> set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol
> has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia
> movement. This protocol is outlined at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
>
> In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
> Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a
> handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a
> result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that
> have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the
> past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a
> consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional
> rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name,
> that had been granted under those agreements.
>
> For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
> reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
> affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
> members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope,
> we have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ
>
> Regards,
> M.
>
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Maor Malul
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve 
> Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915 <+972%2052-486-9915>
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

"Rogol",

As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to
visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
>
> > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> >
>
> Got it, thanks for asking.
>
> >
> > > So for example, in the
> > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> the
> > > software roadmap would be effective.
> >
> >
> > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> > upon
> > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> >
>
> I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
> ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> strategic level.


I now understand your perspective.

Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
. I know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my
mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the
kind of collaboration you speak of.


> To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
> of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
> would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
>

Very useful context. I see your point.


> Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
> by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
> .This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
> require a Roadmap, see below.
>

Thank you. You’ve clearly answered my question about how it is different.
Very useful.
>
>
> The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
> is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
>

Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
reference and I should.

>
>
> > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > some time.
> >
> >
> > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> not
> > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> achieved
> > *the
> > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> >
>
> Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
> transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
>

Useful, clear summary. Appreciated.

>
> >
> > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> that
> > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> fought
> > for it.
> >
> > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> >
>
> My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
> lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.


That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear
your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values

[Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

[Maor Malul]

Dear all,

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, 
or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to 
officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. 
While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards 
set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol 
has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia 
affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued 
recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia 
movement. This protocol is outlined at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_Wikimedia_movement_affiliates


In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from 
Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a 
handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a 
result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that 
have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the 
past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a 
consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional 
rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, 
that had been granted under those agreements.


For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the 
reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active 
affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community 
members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, 
we have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ


Regards,
M.

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Maor Malul
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il 
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[Anna Stillwell]

 “Rogol”,

Now that you’ve told me on another thread that “Rogol” is a fictitious
name, I feel that I’ve entered a world of international intrigue. Lord
knows my Saturday could use the excitement.

Sometimes it may take some time before I can respond. They keep me fairly
busy here.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
> I propose to challenge your comments "t’s not even about whose at fault
> anymore, because we all are. When I talk to people across the movement,
> they're all pretty clear that someone other than themselves is the
> responsible party"
>
> There is a difference between fault, responsibility and accountability.


This is a good point. I’m glad you’ve made it. It adds to this discussion
and my own thinking. Certainly errors can be fixed through an articulation
of accountabilities, if a lack of accountabilities are part of the
underlying reason for the problem.


> Just saying we are all at fault is as meaningful or meaningless, and as
> useless, as saying that we are none of us at fault.


I wouldn't go so far as to say the statement is meaningless when applied to
our collective discourse.

Let’s apply “fault, responsibility, and accountability" to our collective
discourse. When applied to this particular case—our collective discourse on
email threads—then might the questions become, Who is at fault for our
collective discourse on email threads? Who is responsible for our
collective discourse on email threads? Who is accountable for our
collective discourse on email threads?

In collective discourse... everyone is. We are all accountable for how we
engage in civil discourse. But I've already expressed this as an absolute
and I understand that you are trying to get me to look at the relatives,
and wisely so.


> The question is, who is responsible for doing what, to whom are they
> accountable for doing it, and how well or badly have they done what they
> are responsible for?
>

I want to understand this point. Are you talking about issues like who
moderates the threads or who articulates the practices for email threads?

Also, I wonder, do you have your own answers to these questions? Have you
thought about this subject yourself, Rogol? If so, I’d really like to hear
your thoughts on fault, responsibility, accountability and collective
discourse.

>
> You say "We've created a culture that is hard on people".  Which culture do
> you mean?


Thank you for requesting that I be more specific. Generalizations can be
useful in problem solving, but only in certain phases. I am specifically
referring to email threads, and in this particular instance wikimedia-l.

However, I have seen this kind of discourse in other places... talk pages
(largely enwp where I edit), phabricator tickets, IRC.


> Is it the working culture within the WMF?  Or one, some or all
> of the hundreds of volunteer projects?  How were those cultures created
> and why did they evolve as they did?  Did anyone create them, if if "we"
> did, who are "we" in this context?


I think these are another series of very useful questions. Part of the
reason it took me time to respond is because I’ve been contemplating your
questions. They were not at the front of my mind all week, but they were on
the “back burner” .

I’ve come to suspect that you have something to teach me in this regard.
Would you be willing to offer me a history of what you’ve seen and heard
and some origin stories (e.g., who created them, the relevant “we”).


> Is it everyone equally?


You brought this up earlier in your email, at least that is how I read your
initial statement about fault, accountabilities and responsibilities. I
suspect that you have a different point of view and your view is likely
more informed on movement history, structures, and dynamics. So I would
like to understand your take. If you’re willing to offer it, I’d like to
hear it.


> Do you think that a Director of Culture and Collaboration might have more
> responsibility and more impact than one of the hundred thousand or so
> active volunteer content contributors, or the billion or so users?
>

I am very aware of the scope of my purview: I am the Director of Culture
for the Wikimedia Foundation, and I’ve largely approached even that role
through influence rather than command... “nudge and cajole”, not “command
and control.” If I were to imagine myself the Director of Culture for the
movement, I would also need to imagine myself arrogant, ill-informed, and
grandiose, a vision of myself that I admittedly defend against.

But how do you see it, Rogol? Is there something that you would like from
me in this regard? Is there some course of action that you are hoping to
see from me? How shall I serve you?

>
> What do you propose that the Foundation and Community actually do to
> support each other?
>

You are practical, yet another good quality.

On my end, I’m thinking about some kind of modular 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[FRED BAUDER]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:35:30 +0100
 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
Well, there were speakers who were not able to attend Wikimanias in 
Haifa
and Cairo, to start with, because of similar bans, and the general 
response
then was "Whatever place we choose, someone is always 
discriminated". I am
not sure whether this is a healthy attitude or not, but I do not see 
why
the US travel ban leads to a statement whereas existing bans say in 
Arab

world, or Armenia-Azerbaijan or whatever do not.

Cheers
Yaroslav


The US ban is fragile, poorly supported in law; the others are 
entrenched and what we do is not likely to influence them.


Fred


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Well, there were speakers who were not able to attend Wikimanias in Haifa
and Cairo, to start with, because of similar bans, and the general response
then was "Whatever place we choose, someone is always discriminated". I am
not sure whether this is a healthy attitude or not, but I do not see why
the US travel ban leads to a statement whereas existing bans say in Arab
world, or Armenia-Azerbaijan or whatever do not.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 3 February 2017 at 00:00, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > I guess this is referring to
> > .
>
> There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC,
> who would not have been able to attend under the current ban.
>
> I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a
> ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] February 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#5)

[Oloruntoba Oyeyele]

Thanks for this update. Most especially, it's interesting to know the
renewed focus on the African community. Thanks alot for attending Wiki
Indaba as well!

Regards.

Sam.
Wikimedia UserGroup Nigeria

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
> The update the past two weeks were delayed while I joined members of our
> African community in Ghana for WikiIndaba 2017 and participated in
> organization-wide quarterly reviews.
>
> This is a long email. In summary, you will find information on:
>
>- The core movement strategy team
>- Team tracks being developed
>- The Community Process Steering Committee
>- Strategy discussions being planned for Wikimedia Conference 2017
>- The results of preliminary discussions at
>- Wikimedia Foundation's All Hands gathering
>- Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in
>Switzerland
>- The WikiIndaba conference 2017
>
> First, a quick note from Ghana: congratulations to the WikiIndaba
> organizers for a high-energy, high-quality event. The program was engaging,
> highly relevant, and thought-provoking around the future of our movement in
> Africa. It was great to see people from across the continent, from Algeria
> to South Africa, Uganda to Nigeria. If you are reading this from anywhere
> else in the world, and haven’t had a chance to get to know our communities
> in Africa, you should check out these blog posts about the first Africa
> de-stubathon[1] and the third annual Wiki Loves Africa - and mark your
> calendars for Wikimania Cape Town 2018!
>
> Over the past couple weeks, the core strategy team discussed the
> distribution of these updates, and the likelihood that we’re not reaching
> enough people in the community with these notifications. We want to make
> sure everyone has the opportunity to participate in conversations and
> discussions.
>
> As such, the Foundation’s Community Engagement and Communications
> departments are working on plans to increase the distribution of our
> updates to different places and on different channels beyond Wikimedia-l
> (such as other mailing lists, social media groups, and more). *We need your
> help to get the word out so as many communities as possible can make their
> voices heard. *Where do your communities gather? *We welcome your
> suggestions on where we should share these and other updates.*
>
>
> *Core movement strategy team*
>
> As I shared in my last update, the core team who will help facilitate the
> movement strategy process is coming together. They have the experience to
> do the work we need to do—from deep strategic consideration to long-time
> knowledge of Wikimedia.
>
> The core team[2] is composed of individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation
> and williamsworks:[3]
>
>- Whitney Williams, williamsworks
>- Ed Bland, williamsworks
>- Shannon Keith, williamsworks
>- Guillaume Paumier, Senior Analyst, Wikimedia Foundation
>- Suzie Nussel, organizational strategy consultant, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *To be clear - this team will not be determining the strategic direction.
> The Wikimedia movement will, together. *Instead, the core team’s
> responsibility is to shepherd the overall process and keep everyone
> involved and engaged. The architects (Whitney, Ed, Guillaume) will
> co-design the conversations within our communities and beyond, and help
> transform these conversations into meaningful, informed summaries and
> proposed direction. They will work in close collaboration with, and seek
> counsel from, track leads, working groups, and volunteer advisors. The
> project/stakeholder managers (Suzie and Shannon) will work with track leads
> to drive engagement, coordinate the tracks and support them as needed, as
> well as manage tasks, deadlines, and budgets for the overall process.
>
> We had an opportunity to introduce the core team at the January metrics
> meeting, and you can find that here.[4]
>
> *Team tracks (A-D)*
>
> Our proposal is to identify different audiences within our Wikimedia
> communities and organize  "tracks" of information sharing and dialogue that
> meet the unique needs of those different audience. Each track would have a
> working group who would advise the core team on the best way to engage that
> track’s respective communities. While these are still evolving, the four
> tracks we are currently considering are:
>
>- *Track A - Organized groups* - Would coordinate efforts related to
>Wikimedia organized groups, which include the Wikimedia movement
>affiliates,[5] Funds Dissemination Committee, Affiliations Committee,
> the
>WMF Board, Foundation and affiliate staffs, and other organized or
>semi-organized groups that help support the movement, such as GLAM-wiki.
>- *Track B - Individual contributors* - Would coordinate efforts related
>to engaging individual contributors, such as editors, curators, and
>volunteer developers, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Samuel Klein]

Katherine: Thank you, that was beautifully written.

We all have our work cut out for us to preserve the free sharing of
knowledge and experience across borders, and the very notion of reliable
sources.

Mike, your perspective is deeply welcome.

Sharing the world's knowledge is fundamentally political. It has brought
wikimedia directly into political disagreement with a number of national
policies.  We seem to be in the early stages of an all-out information war
of global scope, and I expect the number of those regimes and policies to
grow. I am proud that the WMF has principled stands on issues of freedom,
access, and communication.

And The WMF does sometimes declare positions that I disagree with; as does
the FSF! This is better than having no principles at all. I am firmly
committed to the projects those foundations support because their goals,
their understanding of how part of the world should work, and the people
involved are all extraordinary.

Sam.
___
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] Politics

[Ting Chen]

Well spoken Mike.

Greetings

Ting


Am 04.02.2017 um 15:58 schrieb Mike Godwin:

I don't respond to Wikimedia-l discussion very often, but I think this
debate comes up often enough that it's worth it for me to explain and
elaborate on my own positions.

(1) I understand WP:NPOV to be a rule/guideline about content,
particularly Wikipedia content. I do not believe it is a rule about
Wikimedia processes, or about the Wikimedia movement's mission.

(2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and
after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than
the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone
for free. We are not a neutral enterprise, and we never have been.

(3) There is a vision that some members of the community have that WMF
employees (or contractors, or Trustees, or representatives) ought
never speak out and offer an opinion about political issues.
Ironically, some people in our movement would not want a WMF to have a
public opinion about, say, what "extreme vetting" means unless that
opinion itself were "extremely vetted."

(4) I think those who hold the view I summarize as (3) above are
making a mistake. It seems to me that the reason the community and the
Trustees have slowly crafted an evolving process that, when it works
well, results in strong, capable individuals who can speak effectively
both as representatives of our movement and as leaders of it, is that
we all know we can't hold a plebiscite for everything.

(5) We now know more than eve, thanks to events this year and last
year, that the larger, global, shared world of democratic values is
fragile, and that it's better to respond rapidly to rapidly emerging
issues (such as the treatment of Wikimedians of all backgrounds who
want or need to cross borders to participate in our shared, great
work) than it is to wait until our response is untimely, irrelevant,
or even impossible. The mode that seems to work most effectively for
us is to have strong, effective leaders and employees and
representatives who have earned our trust, and who for that reason can
be trusted to respond on our behalf as rapidly and effectively as
necessary to rapidly emerging issues. Without, shall we say, "extreme
vetting."

(6) Sometimes those whom the Trustees and/or the community have chosen
are not up to the job we ask of them, and it is our strength that we
reserve the right to make our unhappiness known, through channels
ranging from this mailing list to Trustee elections to "voting with
our feet." Because our mission, the Wikimedia mission, is
fundamentally a human process it will be imperfect, and its
imperfections will make us unhappy sometimes. But we are adults, and
we live with those imperfections and take some joy at times in
recognizing them and trying to do better.

(7) Given all these considerations, I am proud to be part of the
Wikimedia movement, proud to be a part of the same community as all of
you, even when the community is sometimes contentious.  I hope that in
the long run we agree now -- right now -- is a time when we should
stand behind anyone in our community, from the Trustees and Katherine
on down to every last one of us, who stands up and speaks out for
humane values and humane judgments, because, it seems to me, the
Wikimedia movement is meant to be a humane, outward-looking,
courageous movement that acknowledges self-doubt but also remains
committed to enabling us all to raise our individual and collective
voices in defense of values grounded in generosity, love, and
tolerance.

Thanks for listening.

--Mike Godwin
WMF General Counsel 2007-2010

___
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] Politics

[Mike Godwin]

I don't respond to Wikimedia-l discussion very often, but I think this
debate comes up often enough that it's worth it for me to explain and
elaborate on my own positions.

(1) I understand WP:NPOV to be a rule/guideline about content,
particularly Wikipedia content. I do not believe it is a rule about
Wikimedia processes, or about the Wikimedia movement's mission.

(2) As I put it many times many years ago in the years before and
after the SOPA/PIPA blackout, there are few POVs *less* neutral than
the commitment to give all the information in the world to everyone
for free. We are not a neutral enterprise, and we never have been.

(3) There is a vision that some members of the community have that WMF
employees (or contractors, or Trustees, or representatives) ought
never speak out and offer an opinion about political issues.
Ironically, some people in our movement would not want a WMF to have a
public opinion about, say, what "extreme vetting" means unless that
opinion itself were "extremely vetted."

(4) I think those who hold the view I summarize as (3) above are
making a mistake. It seems to me that the reason the community and the
Trustees have slowly crafted an evolving process that, when it works
well, results in strong, capable individuals who can speak effectively
both as representatives of our movement and as leaders of it, is that
we all know we can't hold a plebiscite for everything.

(5) We now know more than eve, thanks to events this year and last
year, that the larger, global, shared world of democratic values is
fragile, and that it's better to respond rapidly to rapidly emerging
issues (such as the treatment of Wikimedians of all backgrounds who
want or need to cross borders to participate in our shared, great
work) than it is to wait until our response is untimely, irrelevant,
or even impossible. The mode that seems to work most effectively for
us is to have strong, effective leaders and employees and
representatives who have earned our trust, and who for that reason can
be trusted to respond on our behalf as rapidly and effectively as
necessary to rapidly emerging issues. Without, shall we say, "extreme
vetting."

(6) Sometimes those whom the Trustees and/or the community have chosen
are not up to the job we ask of them, and it is our strength that we
reserve the right to make our unhappiness known, through channels
ranging from this mailing list to Trustee elections to "voting with
our feet." Because our mission, the Wikimedia mission, is
fundamentally a human process it will be imperfect, and its
imperfections will make us unhappy sometimes. But we are adults, and
we live with those imperfections and take some joy at times in
recognizing them and trying to do better.

(7) Given all these considerations, I am proud to be part of the
Wikimedia movement, proud to be a part of the same community as all of
you, even when the community is sometimes contentious.  I hope that in
the long run we agree now -- right now -- is a time when we should
stand behind anyone in our community, from the Trustees and Katherine
on down to every last one of us, who stands up and speaks out for
humane values and humane judgments, because, it seems to me, the
Wikimedia movement is meant to be a humane, outward-looking,
courageous movement that acknowledges self-doubt but also remains
committed to enabling us all to raise our individual and collective
voices in defense of values grounded in generosity, love, and
tolerance.

Thanks for listening.

--Mike Godwin
WMF General Counsel 2007-2010

___
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] Politics

[Jane Darnell]

I agree absolutely with this. All Wikipedians are political and we
pontificate to the world quite happily while following a complex set of
agreed rules. To believe that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view is like
believing there is no systemic bias in the academic world. The gateway that
anyone must pass in order to keep their edits live on Wikipedia is
navigating the extremely complex web known in our jargon as "reliable
sources". I believe Wikipedia has done a better job overall than academia
in general of expanding this magic list by opening up our "set of rules" to
a worldwide playing field, but this magic list is uneven and a
work-in-progress. Face-to-face meetups have only cemented rankings on our
magic list, not erased them. Where does this magic list stand in the
post-truth world? If we believe in our magic list, we believe in the people
who made it and add to it every day and thus we believe in free passage for
those people to any meetup anywhere in the world. Any threat to that safe
passage is a direct threat to our community, no matter how good your irc,
google hangout, skype call, or facebook group might be.

And meanwhile, we will deal with political issues as they affect us in the
way we deal with all the other random stuff of humanity that pops up
regularly in our projects, whether it is based on "reliable sources",
religious belief, superstition, politics, fear, humor, or all of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_Green_Massacre=next=763427006

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> That is an obvious false equivalence.  The issue isn't people rooting
> for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own.  The
> issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission
> can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act
> appropriately.  The free dissemination of factual, neutral information
> and the ability of editors to participate in that dissemination is in
> many contexts a political act and the WMF should recognize this.  To
> contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always
> politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where
> your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political
> interference.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
> >
> >> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech"  Katherine
> >> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians
> from
> >> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
> >> achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as
> I
> >> see it).
> >
> >
> >
> > I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position
> > didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme
> > vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks,
> that
> > nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in
> > recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free
> > societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people
> > (although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why
> taking
> > political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the
> > frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,