Re: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?

[Pine W]

Hi John,

I agree that millions of people choose to spend time on Facebook, as well
as games and other recreational activities like computer games. My guess is
that, for most people, these activities often don't feel like work, while
contributing to Wikimedia often feels like work. I think that are technical
and social factors that contribute to Wikimedia activity feeling like it
requires more effort and/or is less rewarding than the alternatives.

If we had enough human and financial resources, there are changes that
could be made to improve the user experience and to make the rules be
easier to learn and to understand.

I think that making the rules be easier to learn and to understand are more
realistic goals than reducing the complexity of the rules.

Also, I think that there may be design and technical changes that could be
made to improve the intuitiveness of the user experience, and to improve
the social experience.

I'm hoping that my training project will help with users' learning and
understanding of the rules and the interface. However, this is a long term
project.

Design improvements made to the interface would be good if they could be
done well and if WMF could afford them, but my guess is that such changes
will be incremental over many years and that giants like Google will always
be in the lead party because they can afford to spend so much more money
and have so many more staff to make their sites be user-friendly and to
optimize their sites for the user behaviors that they want to foster.

To a certain extent, Google and other large consumer-oriented organizations
compete with WMF for the time of consumers, although one can hope that they
will eventually decide that Wikimedia content is valuable enough to them
that they want to support the community far more than they do at the moment.

I wish that I had reasons to be more optimistic about the human resources
and financial situation in Wikimedia. If you can think of any, I would like
to hear them. :)

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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] Paid translation

[Pine W]

Hi John, perhaps I'm overlooking something. If you recommend that there be
no additional foundation, then who will pay the translators to translate
articles? Are you envisioning WMF paying translators directly, or WMF
paying a third party organization to pay the translators, or a third party
organization executing a self-funded or crowdsourced initiative to pay
translators?

SJ, I'd be interested in getting a fuller description of your thoughts.

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 2:27 AM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> You guys are making the whole idea way to complex. There should be no
> editorial board. That goes against the whole wiki-way of doing things.
> There should be no additional foundation, that makes the whole idea
> unmanageable. It will also cost way more than the gain.
>
> Make thing DarnSimple™! A single list covering all universally valid topics
> that a true encyclopedia should cover. Leave it to the translator to chose
> which source article to use, as this creates the best opportunity to find
> translators. Allow other editors to join in after publication, but do
> respect the primary translators effort. Split the payment in one for the
> initial translation, and one for the followup edits. Cap them to avoid
> bloated articles.
>
> Make a DarnSimple™ interface to manage the translations, where the only
> action is for some identified user to tick of translated articles when they
> reach a certain threshold. In another interface the translator must
> identify himself with sufficient details to make the payment possible. This
> should be an optional part of the usual configuration of an account. All
> persons involved in the editing should have a split, but no payment will be
> done before the account for each editor reaches some threshold.
>
> Make the core list big enough to create a real encyclopedia, but small
> enough that there are room for local additions. There should probably be
> some way to specify local articles, like municipalities, important authors,
> and politicians. A good test is whether such additional articles makes
> sense in neighboring countries or languages. If it isn't possible to
> describe such things in a generic way they should probably be left out. I'm
> not sure if it should be possible to exclude articles, but I guess it will
> be an issue for some languages. Think Armenian genocide, which is
> problematic for some countries.
>
> A small single-book encyclopedia is about 60-70k articles, so lets say such
> a list would cover 25% of this. That would be a list of 15k articles. There
> are perhaps 50 Wikipedias that are large enough to be sustainable, and
> still small enough to miss articles on such a list. That would imply 750k
> articles,  thus plenty of articles for those that would like to translate
> one! Lets say this project is spread over 10 years with a cap on each
> article at 2x USD 10, then it would cost about USD 1500k each year. I
> believe that would be manageable. (Quite frankly I doubt it would be
> possible to find many enough translators, so this will never reach the
> proposed levels!)
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 37

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

Dear all

To confirm, the Affiliations Committee did seek Wikimedia UK's perspective
on the creation of *Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru*. Whilst the
user group will be a separate entity to Wikimedia UK, and not a subsidiary
as such, we are anticipating a lot of joint working and are currently
developing a Memorandum of Understanding to clarify the relationship and to
guide our work together. Robin Owain will continue to be employed full time

to develop and manage Wikimedia UK’s programme in Wales, working with
external partners and the community to help deliver our strategy with a
focus on Wales and the Welsh language. As part of this role he will work
closely with the User Group as to support and develop the Wikimedia
community in Wales, facilitating and delivering partnership events and
activities and acting as the key contact point between the User Group and
the Wikimedia UK Chapter.
Of course, this is a new situation for us so we will continue to reflect on
and review what's working, and any issues that arise, over the next year.

Best wishes
Lucy


On 20 March 2018 at 16:13,  wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru
>   (Kirill Lokshin)
>2. Re: Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru (Fæ)
>3. Re: Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru
>   (Kirill Lokshin)
>4. Re: Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru (Fæ)
>5. Re: Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru
>   (Jean-Philippe Béland)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:03:53 -0600
> From: Kirill Lokshin 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned
> Wicimedia Cymru
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted as
> legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that matter).
>
> Any questions regarding potential legal implications for Wikimedia UK
> should, of course, be directed to the chapter itself.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Support the request that AffCom share their understanding of the scope
> > and authority of the announced User Group.
> >
> > From the wording of "represent Wikimedia UK in Wales"[1], the UG is
> > not independent of WMUK and consequently acts as a Chapter subsidiary.
> > As far as I am aware, there is no other regional based UG which does
> > this.
> >
> > As a corollary, the representation has legal implications for UK
> > Charity. WMUK must have both responsibility and the authority to
> > monitor and control how they are represented by the UG. It is not
> > clear from the meta web page or the community vote how this will work,
> > apart from the implicit assumption that funding paid to UG projects is
> > effectively managed as a WMUK continuing programme. Presumably the UG
> > will not be requesting funds from the WMF or via the FDC process
> > separate from WMUK's FDC procedure.
> >
> > The original vote at the Welsh Wikipedia compared the aims to that of
> > the Basque UG.[2] However based on their scope, the Basque UG does not
> > officially represent any other affiliate or Chapter.
> >
> > Links
> > 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Wales
> > 2. https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicipedia:Sefydlu_Gr%C5%B5p_
> > Defnyddwyr_Wicimedia
> >
> > On 19 March 2018 at 00:10, Philip Kopetzky 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Kirill!
> > >
> > > It would be really helpful to outline these kind of decisions with
> > > arguments/deliberations that AffCom decided to follow, considering that
> > > this sets a precedence in the worldwide community. For example, UG
> Wales
> > > states that they "cooperate with and represent Wikimedia UK in Wales" -
> > > does this mean that we are now accepting UGs within chapters? Is this
> UG
> > > supposed to be able to apply for grants, despite its overlap with WMUK?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11 March 2018 at 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Conference 2015-2017: 3 Year Report

[Pine W]

Hello Cornelius, Nicole, and Daniela,

Thank you for sharing these reflections.

After reading this document, I have a few questions.

1. The document recommends that WMCON evolve into a conference that focuses
on strategy and governance. My guess is that Wikimedia has tens of
thousands of contributors who are not members of affiliates, and it seems
to me that strategy and governance conference should include significant
participation from online contributors who may or may not be associated
with an affiliate. Would you agree with that, or do you envision WMCON
becoming more narrowly focused specifically on offline strategy and
governance such that representation from the broader online community is
not necessary?

2. If WMF were to adopt your recommendations about narrowing the focus of
the conference, then would it be reasonable to place WMCON immediately
before Wikimania and/or the MediaWiki Developer Conference, in the same
venue or a smaller venue in the same local area, for the purpose of
reducing the combined costs of the conferences, total amount of time that
people spend traveling, and the environmental impacts from travel?

3. I agree that there can be good value in regional and thematic
conferences. I also get the impression that WMF is more willing to support
regional and thematic events financially than they were in the past. Are
there learning patterns, case studies, or other information from WMCON that
you would especially recommend for study by organizers of regional and
thematic conferences, organizers of Wikimania, and staff or committee
members for the WMF Conference and Events Grants program
?

4. The report says, "We experienced that most of those who attend the
Wikimedia Conference are highly interested in working together with people
from other affiliates and engaging in international collaboration. However,
international collaboration per se is rarely part of affiliates’ budgets,
or is even cut from grant proposals." I wonder whether greater emphasis on
fostering the development of more thematic organizations
, and user
groups  with
thematic goals, would be helpful. Would you recommend that WMF and the
Affiliations Committee consider what measures could be taken to foster the
creation and development of thematic organizations and
thematically-oriented user groups? Also, do you have any recommendations
for the WMF grants staff and grants committees which you think could foster
the development of international cooperation in ways that lead to specific,
measurable, and timely benefits that provide good value for money?

Thank you for your work on WMCON. I have read a number of WMCON reports
from 2015 onward and I have consistently found them to be interesting and
valuable.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We are excited to share a report on our main learnings from the last three
> years of organizing the Wikimedia Conference. From 2015 to 2017 we have
> focused on improving the conference from year to year, each time learning
> from the experiences and feedback from the preceding years.
>
> The report reflects on our learnings regarding logistics, program design,
> and the general purpose of the conference. The conclusion of the report
> leads to some central questions  that we together need to create clarity
> around to make the most of the Wikimedia Conference in the future: Who is
> the target audience of the Wikimedia Conference? How can we strengthen
> capacity building within the Movement and build stronger links between all
> Wikimedia events? How can the Wikimedia Conference continue to be a useful
> space for conversations about the future direction of the Wikimedia
> Movement?
>
> You can find the report here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference/
> 2015%E2%80%932017_Report
>
>
> Also, we have a layouted version as a pdf
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Conference_2015_to_2017_Report.pdf
>
>
> We look forward to seeing many of you at this year’s WMCON, where the
> future concept and scope of the conference also will be part of the program.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Cornelius, Nicole and Daniela
>
>
> --
> Cornelius Kibelka
> Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> for the Wikimedia Conference
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru

[Isaac Olatunde]

One of the objectives of the group is to "cooperate with and represent
Wikimedia UK in Wales". This is not the same as "We legally represent
Wikimedia UK in Wales". User groups does not legally  represent the WMF and
or any chapter. If a group claim they represent a chapter in a state or
district, AffCom may ask for clarification from the group representatives.
If the response is that "we do not legally represent the chapter ", AffCom
will have no choice than to approve their application if they meet the
basic requirements for recognition.

Regards,

Isaac.

On Mar 20, 2018 4:04 PM, "Kirill Lokshin"  wrote:

Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted as
legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that matter).

Any questions regarding potential legal implications for Wikimedia UK
should, of course, be directed to the chapter itself.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Support the request that AffCom share their understanding of the scope
> and authority of the announced User Group.
>
> From the wording of "represent Wikimedia UK in Wales"[1], the UG is
> not independent of WMUK and consequently acts as a Chapter subsidiary.
> As far as I am aware, there is no other regional based UG which does
> this.
>
> As a corollary, the representation has legal implications for UK
> Charity. WMUK must have both responsibility and the authority to
> monitor and control how they are represented by the UG. It is not
> clear from the meta web page or the community vote how this will work,
> apart from the implicit assumption that funding paid to UG projects is
> effectively managed as a WMUK continuing programme. Presumably the UG
> will not be requesting funds from the WMF or via the FDC process
> separate from WMUK's FDC procedure.
>
> The original vote at the Welsh Wikipedia compared the aims to that of
> the Basque UG.[2] However based on their scope, the Basque UG does not
> officially represent any other affiliate or Chapter.
>
> Links
> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Wales
> 2. https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicipedia:Sefydlu_Gr%C5%B5p_
> Defnyddwyr_Wicimedia
>
> On 19 March 2018 at 00:10, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
> > Hi Kirill!
> >
> > It would be really helpful to outline these kind of decisions with
> > arguments/deliberations that AffCom decided to follow, considering that
> > this sets a precedence in the worldwide community. For example, UG Wales
> > states that they "cooperate with and represent Wikimedia UK in Wales" -
> > does this mean that we are now accepting UGs within chapters? Is this UG
> > supposed to be able to apply for grants, despite its overlap with WMUK?
> >
> > Best,
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 March 2018 at 15:44, Shlomi Fish  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:32:34 -0400
> >> Kirill Lokshin  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone!
> >> >
> >> > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> recognized
> >> > Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru (Wikimedia Community User
> Group
> >> > Wales) [1] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims to promote the
> >> > Wikimedia movement in Wales and support the development of Wikimedia
> >> > projects and content in the Welsh language.
> >> >
> >> > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> >> >
> >>
> >> congratulations!
> >>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Kirill Lokshin
> >> > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
> Group_Wales
> >> > ___
> >> > 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,
> >> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> >> My Favourite FOSS - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/favourite/
> >>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?

[Gnangarra]

en:wp has a vast collective of policies, guidelines and essays to navigate.
Where once we had a philosophy "if the rule get in the way of making an
enncyclopedia ignore the rules" now with so much of what we do the rules
have become absolute. Acknwoledging BLLP, COI, and copyright need to be
absolute.

When new people come along we have expectations that these people can
research, write, and produce content as post grad level from day, if they
create a new article its expected to ready for at least a GA rating if not
FA.

we have so many processes that our precious volunteer resources are
stretched thin which leaves us with small groups of contributors focused on
discussion in isolation, that creates the power imbalance.


   1. Articles for deletion
   2. templates for deletions
   3. files for deletions
   4. categories for deletions
   5. redirect for deletions
   6. miscellany for deletions
   7. speedy
   8. prod

each with their own process and rules, each with their tiny own group
regulars responding to every request and doing the process gnome work.
While it may make for bigger maintance pages the reality is these 8
processes can defined into two areas,


   - Content
  - Articles
  - Files
  - Speedy
  - prod


   - internal / administrative functionality
  - templates
  - categories
  - redirects
  - miscellany

We then have deletion review, which also divided and into smaller parts
depending on the deletion discussion process it went through.   At the time
dividing process because they were too big sounded like a good idea, the
reality was what we did was also divide resources and create virtual
fiefdoms.   When you add into the deletion mix New page patrol with its
various tools and Articles for creation each with their own processes its
no wonder so many potential new contributors cant get their head around how
we work.  This isnt limited to deletion, it happens with everything Admin,
Vandalism, renames, disputes, and everything else we do.  We've made RFA a
big deal once admins got the tools if on the balance of things they likely
to work towards the benefit of the community, now if they are required to
have a lifetime of experience, the personality of a saint, and perfection
of master craftsman before they even get nominated at which the community
tears there contributions apart word by word looking for the faintest
reason to oppose, in the process veiled abuse and innuendo is accepted,
praised, and speaker raised to the status of a god.  In reality all we need
to see is positive contributions, and a fair tone when participating in
consensus building.

We frown upon external discussions about policies and process, like the
current Strategic direction discussions taking place maybe its time that
the WMF do a similar process talking to as many people as possible , bring
back to the community a way forward that not only refines our bureaucracy
but also ensures that the Wikipedia communities out lasts the 25 year
Strategic plan


On 24 March 2018 at 09:27, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I agree that millions of people choose to spend time on Facebook, as well
> as games and other recreational activities like computer games. My guess is
> that, for most people, these activities often don't feel like work, while
> contributing to Wikimedia often feels like work. I think that are technical
> and social factors that contribute to Wikimedia activity feeling like it
> requires more effort and/or is less rewarding than the alternatives.
>
> If we had enough human and financial resources, there are changes that
> could be made to improve the user experience and to make the rules be
> easier to learn and to understand.
>
> I think that making the rules be easier to learn and to understand are more
> realistic goals than reducing the complexity of the rules.
>
> Also, I think that there may be design and technical changes that could be
> made to improve the intuitiveness of the user experience, and to improve
> the social experience.
>
> I'm hoping that my training project will help with users' learning and
> understanding of the rules and the interface. However, this is a long term
> project.
>
> Design improvements made to the interface would be good if they could be
> done well and if WMF could afford them, but my guess is that such changes
> will be incremental over many years and that giants like Google will always
> be in the lead party because they can afford to spend so much more money
> and have so many more staff to make their sites be user-friendly and to
> optimize their sites for the user behaviors that they want to foster.
>
> To a certain extent, Google and other large consumer-oriented organizations
> compete with WMF for the time of consumers, although one can hope that they
> will eventually decide that Wikimedia content is valuable enough to them
> that they want to support the community far more than they do at the
> moment.
>
> I