Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikimedia Community of Tatar Language User Group

[Philip Kopetzky]

Congrats Farhad :-)

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 12:51, Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Our St.Petersburg colleagues wrote a Russian Wikinews article dedicated to
> the event.
>
> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Татарские_викимедийцы_создали_четвёртую_в_России_юзер-группу_Викимедиа
>
> It's English translation is available in November 2018 CEE Newsletter @
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CEE/Newsletter/November_2018/Contents/Russia_report#Russia_report:_Tatar_Wikimedians_created_Russia's_4th_Wikimedia_User_Group
>
> For Erzya language version, see
> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Татаронь_викис_витни-петнийтне_тейсть_нилеце_Россиясо_Викимедиянь_пурнавкс
>
> Translation into Tatar is also coming along @
> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Татарча_язучы_викимедиачылар_Россиядә_дүртенче_Викимедиа_кулланучылар_төркемен_төзеде
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> --
> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>
>
> 27.11.2018, 20:15, "Kirill Lokshin" :
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> > [1] the Wikimedia Community of Tatar Language User Group [2] as a
> Wikimedia
> > User Group. The group aims to develop Wikipedia in Tatar into most
> popular
> > content portal of the Tatar-language internet; to grow other Wikimedia
> > projects in the Tatar language; and to teach new generations of
> > Tatar-language Wikimedians, developing their skills through sharing
> > experiences.
> >
> > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
> > [2]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
> > ___
> > 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] Page views of male/female biographies?

[Risker]

Hmm.  I think the subject of what you call "audience bias" is far more
general than the tiny targeted area you're talking about.  I'm pretty sure
that readers from Poland are thousands of times more likely to access the
Wikipedia article about [name any town in Poland] than readers in Indonesia
are.  I'm pretty sure that readers from all over the world are far more
likely to access articles about people who are named in other publications,
particularly the news media, than they are about notable but comparatively
obscure article subjects who haven't recently been the subject of public
interest.  I do not think you have made a good case for considering the
viewing of articles of male subjects vs. female subjects to be directly
linked to "audience bias".  We only need to look at the top100 articles
viewed on any project to see that what drives page views is usually some
event external to the Wikipedia projects.

Page view data is pretty readily available - it is available for every
single page on every single Wikipedia (and probably for a lot of other
projects too, I've just never checked).  It would require some technical
knowledge to write a script targeting page view information for articles in
selected categories - such as page views of articles about women scientists
- provided there is correct and appropriate categorization of the article.
I'm the first to admit I'm incapable of writing such a script, but there
are lots of Wikimedians who have such skills.

It certainly looks like you are asking for ongoing research to be carried
out on a topic that interests you (and, I am certain, a lot of other
Wikimedians). I am unclear what this kind of metric would tell us about
"audience bias" (or any other kind of bias, for that matter), but there may
be value in better understanding the frequency of viewing of articles in
certain categories and comparing them to related categories; for example,
comparing the frequency of viewing of the average article about a female
architect as compared to a male architect.  It should be noted that there
is also an inherent bias in that there are far fewer biographical articles
about women in most categories, as compared to men.

Risker/Anne

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 18:20, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> Hi Tilman,
>
> I disagree with your appraisal that there are better venues for my
> question. The gendergap mailing list is technically dead, before your
> message the last one was from April. The other mailing list is related to
> research, not to stats that should be readily available.
>
> From your answer (and the lack of more information) I understand that there
> is a poor (inexistent?) tracking of audience bias. In my opinion these data
> would be very useful to monitor how visitors evolve with more availability
> of women's biographies. I have requested it to be added to the Metrics Kit.
> If anyone else wants to endorse or comment:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit#Gender_bias_of_audience
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:22 AM Tilman Bayer  wrote:
>
> > Hi Micru,
> >
> > in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g.
> > the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a
> > partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these
> > stats (if not their long-term trend):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/December#Does_advertising_the_gender_gap_help_or_hurt_Wikipedia
> > ?
> >
> > E.g. "On a typical (median) day in September 2014, no one read 26 percent
> > of the biographies of men versus only 16 percent of the biographies of
> > women."
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
> > > male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Micru
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tilman Bayer
> > Senior Analyst
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

[Dennis During]

Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it
would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
general bias.  The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be
that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure
> NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
> them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type
> of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than
> the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> honesty and context of using sources.
>
> For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
> equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
> be quite biased:
>
> "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according
> to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
> but the true is B."
>
> I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is
> very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
>
>
> śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hoi,
> > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> include
> > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> When
> > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> >
> > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> favourite
> > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> undermines
> > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:
> >
> > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > should
> > > get started.
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> facts.
> > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > ready
> > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees  > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et
> > al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > >
> > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> judgments.
> > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > case
> > > I
> > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > applied.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> I
> > > ___
> > > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page views of male/female biographies?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Tilman,

I disagree with your appraisal that there are better venues for my
question. The gendergap mailing list is technically dead, before your
message the last one was from April. The other mailing list is related to
research, not to stats that should be readily available.

From your answer (and the lack of more information) I understand that there
is a poor (inexistent?) tracking of audience bias. In my opinion these data
would be very useful to monitor how visitors evolve with more availability
of women's biographies. I have requested it to be added to the Metrics Kit.
If anyone else wants to endorse or comment:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit#Gender_bias_of_audience

Regards,
Micru


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:22 AM Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi Micru,
>
> in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g.
> the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a
> partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these
> stats (if not their long-term trend):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/December#Does_advertising_the_gender_gap_help_or_hurt_Wikipedia
> ?
>
> E.g. "On a typical (median) day in September 2014, no one read 26 percent
> of the biographies of men versus only 16 percent of the biographies of
> women."
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
> > male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

[Tomasz Ganicz]

I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure
NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type
of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than
the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
honesty and context of using sources.

For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
be quite biased:

"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according
to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
but the true is B."

I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is
very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.


śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen 
napisał(a):

> Hoi,
> I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
> the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
> they are a faith, they are our faith.
>
> My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
> project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
> Wikipedia as NPOV!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:
>
> > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> should
> > get started.
> >
> > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > satisfactory.
> >
> > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> ready
> > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees  >
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
> al
> > > as
> > > > the new press barons?
> > >
> > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> case
> > I
> > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > applied.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > >  I
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
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 Summit 2019 - Registration closes December 17

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi J. Balaji,

indeed, the Wikimedia Conference 2018 had this option. However, as we are
changing the whole concept of the event (also a reason for a name change)
and limiting the number of participants to 200 max., we cannot invited
unaffiliated groups ( = groups that do not have an affiliate status [yet]).

Both, the Wikimedia Conference and the Wikimedia Summit are *affiliate
conferences*, means we want to keep focussing on Wikimedia affiliates and
the Wikimedia Foundation.

Best regards,
Cornelius

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 20:01, balaji  wrote:

> Hi,
> Last year some oppurtunity was given in the name of "Additionally invited
> communities". But this year I couldnt see any section. For example Tamil
> language doesnt have a user group on its own. But has a good wiki presence
> through different projects. Is there a way for participation of such larger
> communities this year too?
>
> Regards
> J. Balaji
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:59 PM Michelle Poltier <
> michelle.polt...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > If you wish to be part of the Wikimedia Summit 2019 [1] and you have
> > not yet registered, please be reminded that registration closes on
> > Monday, December 17, 2018. You can sign up using the link below [2].
> >
> > == Eligibility criteria ==
> > Please have the eligibility criteria [3] for participating in the
> > Wikimedia Summit in mind and make sure that your affiliate is marked
> > as ready to register before filling out the registration form.
> > Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs
> > of recent activity, be up-to-date on their reporting [4] and need to
> > have have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation
> > before January 1, 2018 in order to attend the Wikimedia Summit.
> >
> > It’s all set and you have been selected to represent your affiliate?
> > Then please proceed with submitting the registration form [5].
> >
> > == Office Hour ==
> > We already had two office hours some time ago where people asked
> > specific questions on the Wikimedia Summit, like visa procedures,
> > eligibility criteria, program design, etc.
> >
> > We would be happy to organize another office hour, but we are a bit
> > unsure, if there’s interest to enjoy another one. So please answer
> > (briefly) directly to wmsum...@wikimedia.de if you are interested in
> > another office hour that could take place before December 20.
> >
> > Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Cornelius & Michelle
> > For the Wikimedia Summit Organizing Team
> > Wikimedia Deutschland
> > wmsum...@wikimedia.de
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019
> > [2]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Registration_Information
> > [3]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Eligibility_Criteria
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports
> > [5]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Registration_Information
> >
> > --
> > Michelle Poltier
> > Event Assistant
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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,
> 



-- 
Cornelius Kibelka
Internationale Beziehungen | International Relations
Vorstandsteam | Office of the ED

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 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Summit 2019 - Registration closes December 17

[Michelle Poltier]

Dear Wikimedians,

If you wish to be part of the Wikimedia Summit 2019 [1] and you have
not yet registered, please be reminded that registration closes on
Monday, December 17, 2018. You can sign up using the link below [2].

== Eligibility criteria ==
Please have the eligibility criteria [3] for participating in the
Wikimedia Summit in mind and make sure that your affiliate is marked
as ready to register before filling out the registration form.
Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs
of recent activity, be up-to-date on their reporting [4] and need to
have have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation
before January 1, 2018 in order to attend the Wikimedia Summit.

It’s all set and you have been selected to represent your affiliate?
Then please proceed with submitting the registration form [5].

== Office Hour ==
We already had two office hours some time ago where people asked
specific questions on the Wikimedia Summit, like visa procedures,
eligibility criteria, program design, etc.

We would be happy to organize another office hour, but we are a bit
unsure, if there’s interest to enjoy another one. So please answer
(briefly) directly to wmsum...@wikimedia.de if you are interested in
another office hour that could take place before December 20.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Cornelius & Michelle
For the Wikimedia Summit Organizing Team
Wikimedia Deutschland
wmsum...@wikimedia.de

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Registration_Information
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Eligibility_Criteria
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports
[5] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Registration_Information

-- 
Michelle Poltier
Event Assistant

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Fwd: [mySociety-community] New Wikiproject Proposal/Wikidata post-election updating toolkit

[Edward Saperia]

ICYMI

*Edward Saperia*
Dean of Newspeak House 
newsletter  • facebook
 • twitter
 • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG


-- Forwarded message -
From: 
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 16:37
Subject: [mySociety-community] New Wikiproject Proposal/Wikidata
post-election updating toolkit
To: mysociety-community 


Hello everyone —


We at mySociety have posted a new Wikiproject proposal for a 2019 project
grant:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikidata_post-election_updating_toolkit.


We need your feedback and comments on the project.


What we’ve done — and what we want to do

Wikidata now has up-to-date and consistent data on political position
holders in current national legislatures for at least 39 countries

(and work in progress for over 60 countries), thanks to work by volunteer
community members on the Wikiproject every politician. mySociety worked as
part of this project with a Wikimedia Foundation grant in 2017-18.

There is now a real possibility for Wikidata to become the definitive
source of data about democracies worldwide — but only if that data can be
maintained sustainably. A significant risk is that elections and other
major political changes quickly render data on political position holders
and legislatures in Wikidata out-of-date.

We’re proposing a Wikidata post-election updating toolkit

project, which aims to ensure that data on elected representatives is
substantially correct and complete within a month following an election,
leading to improved quality and consistency of data in Wikidata over time.
We’ll work as part of the Wikidata community to create and signpost tools
and pathways that help contributors to quickly, easily and consistently
update data following an election or other political change.

How community members can get involved in the project

If you’re already active around data relevant to political position
holders, legislatures, or elections in Wikidata, we’d like your feedback
and help to test the new tools and guidance and ensure that they are
consistent with the emerging consensus around modelling these types of data.

In particular, if you live in a country or major region that has an
upcoming election, please talk to us about piloting the tools! We’d like
for you to test the project tools and guidance to update data following
your country’s election, and to give us feedback on the value and
appropriateness of the approach in your context and political system.

In general, we’re keen to encourage discussion and evaluation of Wikidata
as a source of current position holder data.

Please review our proposal

If you’re interested in this, and are active on Wiki projects, please have
a look and review our proposal here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikidata_post-election_updating_toolkit

Thanks!


~Emily




Emily Robertson-Knowlton
Delivery Manager
mySociety

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mysociety-community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to mysociety-community+unsubscr...@mysociety.org.
To post to this group, send email to mysociety-commun...@mysociety.org.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/group/mysociety-community/.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/d/msgid/mysociety-community/7c507404-9cdf-4af0-9699-fc91f3e6a4aa%40mysociety.org

.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/d/optout.
___
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] Recognition of the Wikimedia Community of Tatar Language User Group

[Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin]

Our St.Petersburg colleagues wrote a Russian Wikinews article dedicated to the 
event.
https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Татарские_викимедийцы_создали_четвёртую_в_России_юзер-группу_Викимедиа

It's English translation is available in November 2018 CEE Newsletter @ 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CEE/Newsletter/November_2018/Contents/Russia_report#Russia_report:_Tatar_Wikimedians_created_Russia's_4th_Wikimedia_User_Group

For Erzya language version, see 
https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Татаронь_викис_витни-петнийтне_тейсть_нилеце_Россиясо_Викимедиянь_пурнавкс

Translation into Tatar is also coming along @ 
https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Татарча_язучы_викимедиачылар_Россиядә_дүртенче_Викимедиа_кулланучылар_төркемен_төзеде

regards,
farhad

-- 
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / 
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan


27.11.2018, 20:15, "Kirill Lokshin" :
> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> [1] the Wikimedia Community of Tatar Language User Group [2] as a Wikimedia
> User Group. The group aims to develop Wikipedia in Tatar into most popular
> content portal of the Tatar-language internet; to grow other Wikimedia
> projects in the Tatar language; and to teach new generations of
> Tatar-language Wikimedians, developing their skills through sharing
> experiences.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
> ___
> 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] Mobile fundraising ads

[vermont--- via Wikimedia-l]

Hello all,

Please see: 
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=6334670=6327710=source

This is not an isolated incident. I've seen it on-wiki in other locations, 
although did not record the links.

Entering Wikipedia while not logged in, from both a PC and mobile device, lead 
to an insane amount of large, bright red banners asking for donations. 
Statistics may show that this sort of advertising gains the most clicks and 
donations. That should not be the only metric by which donation requests are 
decided.

We are losing readers because of this.

Thanks,
Vermont

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l  On Behalf Of James 
Salsman
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mobile fundraising ads

Seddon, thanks for addressing this.

What are your thoughts about measuring the extent to which you would have to 
run a minimalist banner to achieve current goals, as per 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2018-19_Fundraising_ideas#Design
?

Both of the "small" banners in the set of four (total?) you are testing -- 
linked from the top of that page -- seem to be as big as the average banner was 
ten years or so ago. Is that a fair statement?

Do you agree with Yair's sentiment that you should have never measured the cost 
per donation on Facebook as expressed at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2018-19_Fundraising_ideas#Technical
?

Best regards,
Jim




On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:47 PM Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
> Hey Molly,
>
> Thank you for your feedback, it is really appreciated. There are a 
> fair few points you’ve raised so I will do my best cover them all. For 
> some background, mobile fundraising is vitally important. Desktop page 
> views have been in decline for the past 2-3 years from 4.36 billion 
> (Oct 2016) to
> 3.64 billion (Oct 2018). Likewise, the relative effectiveness as of 
> mobile as a fundraising platform has historically been substantially 
> lower compared with desktop. So we’ve been working hard to ensure that 
> as user behaviours shift we are well prepared and that the future of 
> the movement is safeguarded.
>
> We show two types of banner to users on both desktop and mobile. The 
> first banner is larger and shown only once to user in their browser 
> followed by a second banner that is show to the user typically up to a 
> maximum of 9 times and is substantially smaller.
>
> Our mobile large banner changed last November from a splash style 
> banner to the current text message style. Since then one of the things 
> that has constantly surprised us, is that people seem to genuinely 
> read the extra content. We’ve repeatedly tested over the past year 
> removing content and every time, the shorter banners loose. Now this 
> could just imply that it’s length that was producing move effective 
> banners. So we decided to confirm if people were actually reading our 
> banners. We tested two banners of similar length, one with our best 
> copy and one where we replaced some of the lower paragraphs with copy 
> had historically lost out in previous testing. Our best copy won and 
> confirmed that people are actually invested in reading our banners. So 
> the copy is long and we are continuing to try and shorten it but we 
> genuinely believe its not just impactful of genuine value to our readers and 
> donors.
>
> When we implemented this style of banner we made sure to add a toolbar 
> to the top that enabled users to skip straight to the article. You 
> mentioned on facebook that you didn’t notice that we will look to see 
> if we can make the toolbar a little more visible to users.
>
> Regarding the bottom red banner, that is something that was retained 
> from previous versions of this banner. We actually have just 
> instrumented our banners so that we could track the effectiveness. We 
> got data that this additional call to action was not performing as 
> originally expected, most likely due to the format of the banner 
> having changed since last year. We re-tested removing this and the 
> effect was minimal and so we have removed this in our large banner on the 
> first impression.
>
> We completely agree that it’s vitally important to ensure our readers 
> who use assistive technologies are supported and we are going to look 
> at how we can improve our banner content to ensure compatibility and 
> provide a good experience including improving descriptions, providing 
> better descriptions and maybe look at suppressing some content for 
> screen readers to reduce some of the impact for them.
>
> I will copy this to your cross post on wiki too :) Thank you again for 
> your feedback, it is genuinely appreciated and the fundraising team 
> are actively acting on it.
>
> Regards
>
> Seddon
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 4:52 PM GorillaWarfare < 
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I feel a little bad raising this because I know there was some 
> > community