Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread James Salsman
Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
>
> Do you believe truth and accuracy are to be found only
> at one ppint on the spectrum of political belief?

There is a very strong correlation which has, since November, become
much stronger. Compare for example:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (16% "True" or
"Mostly true") with

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ (48% "True" or
"Mostly true.")

> Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

No, but if people around the world are misled because we fail in our
mission to collect, develop, and disseminate educational content
effectively, then they are likely to have much different goals than if
they were able to access accurate information.

___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Peter Southwood
Fighting against an inhumane stance is entirely a political move.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Amir Ladsgroup
Sent: Wednesday, 08 March 2017 9:33 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

We are not taking a stand in different positions each party is taking on 
economical matters. No one here wearing a donkey hat. Problem begins when a 
party takes inhumane stance, fighting against it should not be considered a 
political move. Trust me, that's exactly what happened in Iran.

Best

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, 10:50 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> James
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with 
> > remaining accurate?
> >
>
> I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you 
> believe truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the 
> spectrum of political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how 
> the world is) are identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14074 - Release Date: 03/08/17


___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Peter Southwood
Some political philosophies are more amenable to truth and accuracy than 
others. Facts about how the world is do not have any necessary connection to 
beliefs about how the world should be. Beliefs are not constrained by reality, 
facts are. Any overlap is coincidental.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rogol Domedonfors
Sent: Wednesday, 08 March 2017 9:20 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:

>
> Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with 
> remaining accurate?
>

I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you believe 
truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of 
political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are 
identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

"Rogol"
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14074 - Release Date: 03/08/17


___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Amir Ladsgroup
We are not taking a stand in different positions each party is taking on
economical matters. No one here wearing a donkey hat. Problem begins when a
party takes inhumane stance, fighting against it should not be considered a
political move. Trust me, that's exactly what happened in Iran.

Best

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, 10:50 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> James
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
> > remaining accurate?
> >
>
> I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you believe
> truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of
> political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:

>
> Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
> remaining accurate?
>

I would say yes.  Let me put two converse questions to you.  Do you believe
truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of
political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

"Rogol"
___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread James Salsman
Pine,

Which facts do you think the "facts matter" theme should have emphasized?

Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
remaining accurate?

To what extent does staying focused on mission involve pointing out
issues with freedom and accuracy in society, in your view?


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> Hi Heather,
>
> Thanks for commenting.
>
> The theme of "facts matter" seems good to me, and I generally like Victor's
> video. However, the way that this report comes across to me is that it
> advocates for certain points of view on issues which, however important
> they may be (I happen to think global warming is a very important issue),
> are not integral to Wikipedia's mission. Also, I found it strange that the
> "front page" of the report has a "Facts matter" section that leads off with
> information about refugees and the Earth's temperature trends. On the
> whole, that section comes across to me as being off-message. I would
> encourage revising the report so that it's more consistent with the themes
> and tone of Victor's video.
>
> Social impact in the form of informing public dialogue is a valuable
> attribute to Wikipedia, and I would encourage a more neutral approach to
> articulating that attribute as has been discussed in this thread. It's
> possible to highlight social impact while remaining compatible with NPOV
> and staying focused on mission.
>
> Thanks for engaging here.
>
> Pine
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Heather Walls  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This has become an interesting and important conversation. First, many
>> thanks to everyone as they bring their intellect, experience, and
>> thoughtfulness to this topic. And thanks to Zack for many months of work
>> organizing a complex project, with a theme that became increasingly
>> sensitive due to external public discourse, and especially for making a
>> tremendous and honest effort to hear feedback and to respond quickly here.
>> I’d also like to thank all the people who helped read, write, edit, and
>> consider this report.
>>
>> We chose this theme in October, and have used it successfully in messaging
>> since then. It was part of the December English-language fundraising
>> campaign, in emails and banners to donors, and received very positive
>> response. It was the theme of a video, shared in December,[1] that became a
>> featured video on Commons.[2] We also shared our work and development
>> process on this report publicly when we published the Communications
>> department’s check-in slides covering the 2nd fiscal quarter (Sep - Dec
>> 2016).[3]
>>
>> Social impact is a very important part of Wikimedia that is hard to
>> understand from the outside, but that impact is one of the things that
>> makes your work so meaningful, and helps us find contributors and partners
>> around the world. As Zack mentioned, our annual reports are created for an
>> audience that includes ongoing financial contributors and people new to us.
>> They are intended to be timely and relevant to the interests of people who
>> are not as deeply involved in Wikimedia as the rest of us. They tell the
>> story of what Wikimedians have achieved in the context of the world, and
>> are related to topics in international conversations. Some of those stories
>> are efforts supported by the Foundation, and many are celebrations of the
>> importance and timeliness of independent work of members of the movement.
>> Wikimedia is rich and complex, and we revise our theme each year to share
>> new facets. The Foundation has been making these since 2008.[4]
>>
>> Yes, our report was meant to bring up relevant topics for a global
>> audience, and to tie important facts to the work of Wikimedians. It was
>> meant to focus on the range of things people can learn from Wikipedia, from
>> the historical to the social to the controversial. But it was not a
>> response to anything that occurred in recent weeks, or in any one country.
>> We debated the relationship between the theme and public discourse as that
>> discourse changed, but decided that Wikimedia’s relationship with facts
>> hadn’t changed. The report is not perfect, and many people have pointed out
>> excellent alternative directions we might have taken. We’re listening, and
>> we will learn from your suggestions and ideas in our continuing work.
>>
>> I am proud of the intentions, hard work, experience, and many difficult
>> decisions my colleagues on the Communications team and our collaborators
>> across the Foundation and community make every day. I hope the abridged
>> timeline of events, below, will help make some our process more visible to
>> you as well.
>>
>> -Heather
>>
>>
>> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/27/not-post-fact-world/
>> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_-_
>> FactsMatter2016.webm
>> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread rupert THURNER
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> On 8 March 2017 at 06:45, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> Risker wrote:
>> >I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to
>> >this draft code of conduct?
>>
>> You may find these links helpful:
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
>> February/086595.html
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Summary_of_criticisms
> With all respect, the summary is not a summary. Wading through long, long
> more of the same is not helpful. We have had more of the same here on this
> list.
risker asked if it is process or contents. as far as i was able to
follow: both. isarra hits it so much on the spot, with "When designing
anything - processes, software, architecture - you need to know your
use cases in order to properly address them."  from process
perspective it is driven by WMF employees. (nearly) no input from
volunteers, and if there was input, it was "WMF, please let the
volunteers run making policies for volunteers". from a content
perspective, the policy is bloated, does not remove something else. no
case was shown where the pre-existing or common sense is not good
enough. the WMF persons driving it seemed to be fine with ignoring
these inputs - or mainly the "no-input". at the end of the day if you
have 1000 pages of policies, or 1050, what is the big difference? what
is the difference of having 40 committees or 41? one. or, maybe 42 for
the douglas adams fans.

sometimes i feel a mentality of "less is more" would be a benefit.
1050 pages of policies sounds like a harassment by itself. but would i
invest time to address it? no way - i is not fun and makes tired. if
we want less policies or more efficient ones, WMF could pay less
persons, they would then have no time any more to produce texts like
this. or WFM could pay a person to delete pages, instead of paying a
person to add pages. kind of paying a fitness trainer to loose weight
i guess.

___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Pine W
Hi Heather,

Thanks for commenting.

The theme of "facts matter" seems good to me, and I generally like Victor's
video. However, the way that this report comes across to me is that it
advocates for certain points of view on issues which, however important
they may be (I happen to think global warming is a very important issue),
are not integral to Wikipedia's mission. Also, I found it strange that the
"front page" of the report has a "Facts matter" section that leads off with
information about refugees and the Earth's temperature trends. On the
whole, that section comes across to me as being off-message. I would
encourage revising the report so that it's more consistent with the themes
and tone of Victor's video.

Social impact in the form of informing public dialogue is a valuable
attribute to Wikipedia, and I would encourage a more neutral approach to
articulating that attribute as has been discussed in this thread. It's
possible to highlight social impact while remaining compatible with NPOV
and staying focused on mission.

Thanks for engaging here.

Pine

Pine


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Heather Walls  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This has become an interesting and important conversation. First, many
> thanks to everyone as they bring their intellect, experience, and
> thoughtfulness to this topic. And thanks to Zack for many months of work
> organizing a complex project, with a theme that became increasingly
> sensitive due to external public discourse, and especially for making a
> tremendous and honest effort to hear feedback and to respond quickly here.
> I’d also like to thank all the people who helped read, write, edit, and
> consider this report.
>
> We chose this theme in October, and have used it successfully in messaging
> since then. It was part of the December English-language fundraising
> campaign, in emails and banners to donors, and received very positive
> response. It was the theme of a video, shared in December,[1] that became a
> featured video on Commons.[2] We also shared our work and development
> process on this report publicly when we published the Communications
> department’s check-in slides covering the 2nd fiscal quarter (Sep - Dec
> 2016).[3]
>
> Social impact is a very important part of Wikimedia that is hard to
> understand from the outside, but that impact is one of the things that
> makes your work so meaningful, and helps us find contributors and partners
> around the world. As Zack mentioned, our annual reports are created for an
> audience that includes ongoing financial contributors and people new to us.
> They are intended to be timely and relevant to the interests of people who
> are not as deeply involved in Wikimedia as the rest of us. They tell the
> story of what Wikimedians have achieved in the context of the world, and
> are related to topics in international conversations. Some of those stories
> are efforts supported by the Foundation, and many are celebrations of the
> importance and timeliness of independent work of members of the movement.
> Wikimedia is rich and complex, and we revise our theme each year to share
> new facets. The Foundation has been making these since 2008.[4]
>
> Yes, our report was meant to bring up relevant topics for a global
> audience, and to tie important facts to the work of Wikimedians. It was
> meant to focus on the range of things people can learn from Wikipedia, from
> the historical to the social to the controversial. But it was not a
> response to anything that occurred in recent weeks, or in any one country.
> We debated the relationship between the theme and public discourse as that
> discourse changed, but decided that Wikimedia’s relationship with facts
> hadn’t changed. The report is not perfect, and many people have pointed out
> excellent alternative directions we might have taken. We’re listening, and
> we will learn from your suggestions and ideas in our continuing work.
>
> I am proud of the intentions, hard work, experience, and many difficult
> decisions my colleagues on the Communications team and our collaborators
> across the Foundation and community make every day. I hope the abridged
> timeline of events, below, will help make some our process more visible to
> you as well.
>
> -Heather
>
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/27/not-post-fact-world/
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_-_
> FactsMatter2016.webm
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
> 3AWikimedia_Foundation_Communications_Q2_(Oct-Dec_
> 2016)_-_Jan_2017_quarterly_check-in.pdf=13
> [4] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
>
> *Our fact criteria:*
> Global, relevant to general readers and to 2016, verifiable, related to the
> work of Wikimedians, surprising or interesting
>
> *2016*
> 13 Oct: Meeting where “Facts Matter” was established, our deadline for a
> full draft was December 15
> 28 Oct: First design review of website mockups.
> 7 Nov: Design team 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
With all respect, the summary is not a summary. Wading through long, long
more of the same is not helpful. We have had more of the same here on this
list.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 March 2017 at 06:45, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Risker wrote:
> >I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to
> >this draft code of conduct?
>
> You may find these links helpful:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> February/086595.html
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Summary_of_criticisms
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread MZMcBride
Risker wrote:
>I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to
>this draft code of conduct?

You may find these links helpful:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086595.html
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Summary_of_criticisms

MZMcBride



___
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] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Erzyan Language User Group

2017-03-07 Thread Biyanto Rebin
Yeay! Another language user group. Congratulations!

2017-03-07 23:38 GMT+07:00 Kirill Lokshin :

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> the Wikimedians of Erzyan Language User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User
> Group.
>
> The group aims to promote the development of Wikipedia in the Erzya
> language, and to document topics related to the Erzya language, culture and
> community.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Erzya_
> language_User_Group
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>


-- 

Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
Wikimedia Indonesia
Nomor Ponsel: +62 8989 037379
Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id


Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
___
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] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Wikimaps User Group

2017-03-07 Thread Biyanto Rebin
Congratulations, Wikimaps user group!

2017-03-07 23:37 GMT+07:00 Kirill Lokshin :

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> the Wikimaps User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.
>
> The group aims to gather Wikimedia users engaged in a variety of
> activities related to geographic information from across the movement, so
> that people with different ideas for using geographic components in their
> projects are able to come together, share their expertise, and help each
> other.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps_User_Group
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>


-- 

Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
Wikimedia Indonesia
Nomor Ponsel: +62 8989 037379
Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id


Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
___
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] [Affiliates] Recognition of the West Bengal Wikimedians User Group

2017-03-07 Thread Biyanto Rebin
Congratulations for West Bengal User Group!


Best,

2017-03-07 23:39 GMT+07:00 Kirill Lokshin :

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> the West Bengal Wikimedians User Group [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.
>
> The group aims to build a strong and diverse volunteer community base
> throughout West Bengal by increasing interaction among community members,
> encouraging them to develop content in different Wikimedia projects and
> organizing various online and offline activities.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal_Wikimedians
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>


-- 

Biyanto Rebin | Ketua Umum (*Chair*) 2016-2018
Wikimedia Indonesia
Nomor Ponsel: +62 8989 037379
Surel: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id


Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Pine W
Commenting generally (i.e. not specifically to Risker), this topic has been
giving me enough of a headache that I would like to see some kind of path
forward, preferably one with the most harmony. I suggest that what should
happen based on my admittedly not-detailed look at the draft's history and
present state is that the whole document should go forward with an RfC.
After that happens, I hope we'll all have enough clarity about the document
to figure out what should happen next.

Personally, I'm kind of tired of this topic and would like to move on with
something that is less contentious.

I do want some kind of behavior policy for Phabricator in particular. I'm
not sure that it's this one as it's currently written, but I'm more
concerned at this point about procedure than substance. Whatever the
outcome of an RfC on the whole document is, I'd suggest accepting it and
moving forward from there.

Pine
___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Risker
I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to
this draft code of conduct?  This document closely parallels both the WMF
friendly space policy and similar policies in the broader tech/developer
community. It is also not that far from policies that exist on many
Wikimedia projects, with the possible exception of having a better
delineated path of reporting of problem behaviour, and a stronger
expectation of having problem behaviour addressed. Do people have a problem
with the document itself, or just the process of its development?

If, for example, the communities of Polish Wikipedia and Polish Wikisource
got together with Wikimedia Poland and they jointly developed a similar
policy to apply in those projects and in events relating to those projects
and organizations, would people from other projects be upset because (in
the rare event that they might edit Polish Wikipedia or attend a Wikimedia
Poland event) those expectations would be applied to them?  Would we, as a
broader community, think that it would be okay to (attempt to) block those
closely related projects/organizations from developing such a policy?

This is a genuine question; I'm having a hard time sorting out some of the
comments that have been made in this thread.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Matthew Flaschen

On 02/26/2017 01:23 PM, Adrian Raddatz wrote:

The benefit to individual admins (and whatever the equivalent
is on phab) making decisions about blocks is that you know who did it and
how to appeal it.


There is no equivalent on Phabricator.  That just had enforcement by 
Developer Relations, first based on best judgment and the Phabricator 
etiquette and later their own interpretation of the community-written 
CoC draft.


Going forward, Phabricator enforcement will be less WMF-centric, since 
it will be done by the Committee (once it's up and running), with only 
appeals handled by Technical Collaboration.


Matt Flaschen

___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Matthew Flaschen

On 02/25/2017 02:15 PM, MZMcBride wrote:

The "no conduct policy for technical spaces" argument was debunked here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085573.html


This is false.  None of the three policies you cited are a code of 
conduct for technical spaces that applies online to everyone, including 
volunteers:


* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_policy - Only 
binding on staff and Board.


* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use - Not a code of 
conduct, does not define harassment.  A legal document that encourages 
creating project policies like the code of conduct ("The Wikimedia 
community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the 
community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project 
edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, 
or banning users who violate those policies.")


* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy - Does not 
apply online, or to Wikimedia tech events that are not funded by the 
foundation.



Pine W also wrote:

Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:


Sort of. The proposed text currently includes "If a WMF employee or
contractor is accused of wrongdoing, or a WMF employee or contractor is
reported as being subjected to wrongdoing, the Committee will forward the
report to the employee's or contractor’s manager, and to WMF HR in
writing." It remains very unclear whether this code of conduct policy can
apply to Wikimedia Foundation employees, given comments from the Wikimedia
Foundation's Legal and Human Resources departments.


No "sort of".  It unambiguously applies to all members of the community 
regardless of status, and Legal posted consistent with that 
(https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Freedom_of_the_Code_of_Conduct_Committee)



It's darkly amusing to see you citing the English Wikipedia. When I
pointed out to you on mediawiki.org that "it would never be appropriate
for the person who began a discussion to then also close that discussion,"
you replied that "English Wikipedia policies do not apply here."


I noted that in response to a claim about all WMF wikis: "That is always 
the case.", so in this case citing any wiki was a sufficient 
counter-example to disprove that claim.


Matt Flaschen

___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
I can see how it can attract AND repel volunteers overall, just as we see it 
attractive and off-putting to people discussing on this list.


From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of James 
Salsman 
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:17:19 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter  wrote:
>
> Equally James, how is this advocacy "extremely helpful"? How does it help the 
> building and maintainence of Wikimedia projects? How does it help the many 
> volunteers who work on these projects?

Taking a stand for personal freedom attracts volunteers in support of
free culture, just as supporting scientific consensus opposed by money
in politics attracts those who value accuracy.

___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread James Salsman
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter  wrote:
>
> Equally James, how is this advocacy "extremely helpful"? How does it help the 
> building and maintainence of Wikimedia projects? How does it help the many 
> volunteers who work on these projects?

Taking a stand for personal freedom attracts volunteers in support of
free culture, just as supporting scientific consensus opposed by money
in politics attracts those who value accuracy.

___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Heather Walls
Hello,

This has become an interesting and important conversation. First, many
thanks to everyone as they bring their intellect, experience, and
thoughtfulness to this topic. And thanks to Zack for many months of work
organizing a complex project, with a theme that became increasingly
sensitive due to external public discourse, and especially for making a
tremendous and honest effort to hear feedback and to respond quickly here.
I’d also like to thank all the people who helped read, write, edit, and
consider this report.

We chose this theme in October, and have used it successfully in messaging
since then. It was part of the December English-language fundraising
campaign, in emails and banners to donors, and received very positive
response. It was the theme of a video, shared in December,[1] that became a
featured video on Commons.[2] We also shared our work and development
process on this report publicly when we published the Communications
department’s check-in slides covering the 2nd fiscal quarter (Sep - Dec
2016).[3]

Social impact is a very important part of Wikimedia that is hard to
understand from the outside, but that impact is one of the things that
makes your work so meaningful, and helps us find contributors and partners
around the world. As Zack mentioned, our annual reports are created for an
audience that includes ongoing financial contributors and people new to us.
They are intended to be timely and relevant to the interests of people who
are not as deeply involved in Wikimedia as the rest of us. They tell the
story of what Wikimedians have achieved in the context of the world, and
are related to topics in international conversations. Some of those stories
are efforts supported by the Foundation, and many are celebrations of the
importance and timeliness of independent work of members of the movement.
Wikimedia is rich and complex, and we revise our theme each year to share
new facets. The Foundation has been making these since 2008.[4]

Yes, our report was meant to bring up relevant topics for a global
audience, and to tie important facts to the work of Wikimedians. It was
meant to focus on the range of things people can learn from Wikipedia, from
the historical to the social to the controversial. But it was not a
response to anything that occurred in recent weeks, or in any one country.
We debated the relationship between the theme and public discourse as that
discourse changed, but decided that Wikimedia’s relationship with facts
hadn’t changed. The report is not perfect, and many people have pointed out
excellent alternative directions we might have taken. We’re listening, and
we will learn from your suggestions and ideas in our continuing work.

I am proud of the intentions, hard work, experience, and many difficult
decisions my colleagues on the Communications team and our collaborators
across the Foundation and community make every day. I hope the abridged
timeline of events, below, will help make some our process more visible to
you as well.

-Heather


[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/27/not-post-fact-world/
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_-_FactsMatter2016.webm
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
3AWikimedia_Foundation_Communications_Q2_(Oct-Dec_
2016)_-_Jan_2017_quarterly_check-in.pdf=13
[4] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report

*Our fact criteria:*
Global, relevant to general readers and to 2016, verifiable, related to the
work of Wikimedians, surprising or interesting

*2016*
13 Oct: Meeting where “Facts Matter” was established, our deadline for a
full draft was December 15
28 Oct: First design review of website mockups.
7 Nov: Design team meeting, notes include:

   - “Reaffirm facts matter”
   - “Reacting to present moment is antithetical to the WMF movement”
   - “We care just as much about facts as we did a year ago, 10 years ago,
   and will care in five years”

14 Dec: Facts final, content drafted
27 Dec: Facts matter video posted

*2017*
6 Jan: Site and content review with other departments (locked to major
changes)
17 Jan: Print layout of all content
27 Jan: Communications quarterly review[3] posted Feb 7
1 Mar: Sharing the Facts Matter site


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Yair Rand  wrote:

> Risker has outlined many of the issues with the report much better than I
> would have been able to. While I'm happy to hear there will be some
> reordering and that one of the images will be replaced, the report still
> has many very serious problems.
>
> How can we fix this? I can think of a few options:
> * The report could be made open to edits from the community. (I was hopeful
> when the report was posted on Meta that it would be editable, but it was
> apparently posted primarily for translation purposes and is not editable.)
> Over the course of a few weeks much of the content could be rewritten to be
> close enough to neutral.
> * We could continue discussing specific problems in tone 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
Equally James, how is this advocacy "extremely helpful"? How does it help the 
building and maintainence of Wikimedia projects? How does it help the many 
volunteers who work on these projects?


From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of James 
Salsman 
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:53:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Yair,

Would you please explain what you mean by damaging?

> To have a huge banner placed over every article on
> the whole project linking to 43px-font blatant political
> advocacy which can't be reverted, is really damaging.

My opinion remains that 43pt blatant advocacy in support of both
personal freedom of movement and scientific consensus disputed by
fossil fuel interests is extremely helpful to the Foundation, its
Mission, and in attracting additional volunteers, especially because
those issues have been disfavored by recent political trends brought
about by political leveraging of xenophobia and lobbyist money.

Why do people think it is reasonable to claim that such advocacy is
damaging without presenting any evidence in support of their opinion?
Clearly many people do, but why?

___
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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-07 Thread Lilburne
It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the 
copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that 
reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in 
a world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the 
licenses. Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from 
other people because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe 
uploads an CC image from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the 
image it will end up being credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. 
Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe Blow's image is actually a 
derivative that contains parts of images from multiple other people.


When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create 
a liability for down stream reusers.



On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply
with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
expected to comply with them. That's a problem.

For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information
is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
page.[1]

Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the
same way Wikipedia is using it?

If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.

One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
attribution.

It doesn't seem fair.


[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
[2]
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:


I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.




I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.
___
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, 





___
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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-07 Thread Lilburne

On 06/03/2017 06:37, Gergő Tisza wrote:

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:


I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
accompanying page.


I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.


But Commons does the same thing in reverse. I recall some 12yo uploading 
a photograph of a butterfly in the mistaken belief that it could only be 
used on wikipedia. Then when realising the mistake wanted the image 
removed. The Commons denizens harangued and hounded the kid across 
various talk and administrator pages for several weeks in respect to the 
fine print of the license.



___
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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-07 Thread Lilburne

On 07/03/2017 02:24, James Forrester wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 18:14 Lilburne > wrote:


For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image
along
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?

Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.


This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's 
Commons POTD 
, 
unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)





In which case I have little sympathy for those too lazy to use the tools 
provided.



___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-07 Thread James Salsman
Yair,

Would you please explain what you mean by damaging?

> To have a huge banner placed over every article on
> the whole project linking to 43px-font bla