Re: [Wikimedia-l] A BIG congratulations to the WikiVoyage community.

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear James,

I join the congratulations and remind the audience that it was you who
played an important role to bring wikivoyage into the wikimedia
family. Congratulations!

Kind regards
Ziko

Am So., 14. Apr. 2019 um 19:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman :
>
> Back in 2013 the WikiVoyage community joined the Wikimedia Movement after
> leaving their prior hoster and site behind.
>
> Per Alexa WikiVoyage this month passed in popularity the website they left.
> WikiVoyage is now the 14,793 most popular website in the world as opposed
> to WikiTravel at 15,821.
>
> A BIG congratulations to the WikiVoyage community :-)
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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 Chile Board Election

[camelia boban]

Congratulations to Rocio and all Wikimedia Chile board.

Camelia

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 8:24 PM Marco Correa  wrote:

> [Sorry for the cross posting]
>
> Dear all,
>
> *Wikimedia Chile* (WMCL) held its annual General Assembly on April 13th,
> which was also the beginning of a new term of our Board (2019-2021). All
> the members from the 2017-2019 Board were reelected for the next two years,
> and the positions were filled as follows:
>
> - Rocío Consales, Chair;
> - Marco Correa: Vicechair;
> - Carlos Figueroa, Secretary;
> - Osmar Valdebenito, Treasurer;
> - Dennis Tobar, Director:
> - Claudio Loader, Director.
>
> We are glad to have Rocío serving as the new president of WMCL, not just
> for her amazing work as volunteer and Board Member, but also because she is
> the first woman to hold this position in our chapter's history.
> Congratulations, Rocío!
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Marco Correa Pérez*
> Vicechair - Wikimedia Chile
> http://www.wikimediachile.cl
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia Chile Board Election

[Marco Correa]

[Sorry for the cross posting]

Dear all,

*Wikimedia Chile* (WMCL) held its annual General Assembly on April 13th,
which was also the beginning of a new term of our Board (2019-2021). All
the members from the 2017-2019 Board were reelected for the next two years,
and the positions were filled as follows:

- Rocío Consales, Chair;
- Marco Correa: Vicechair;
- Carlos Figueroa, Secretary;
- Osmar Valdebenito, Treasurer;
- Dennis Tobar, Director:
- Claudio Loader, Director.

We are glad to have Rocío serving as the new president of WMCL, not just
for her amazing work as volunteer and Board Member, but also because she is
the first woman to hold this position in our chapter's history.
Congratulations, Rocío!

Best regards,

*Marco Correa Pérez*
Vicechair - Wikimedia Chile
http://www.wikimediachile.cl
___
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] A BIG congratulations to the WikiVoyage community.

[James Heilman]

Back in 2013 the WikiVoyage community joined the Wikimedia Movement after
leaving their prior hoster and site behind.

Per Alexa WikiVoyage this month passed in popularity the website they left.
WikiVoyage is now the 14,793 most popular website in the world as opposed
to WikiTravel at 15,821.

A BIG congratulations to the WikiVoyage community :-)
-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Fæ

I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
Foundation in the way you suggest.  To take the UK chapter, with you are
probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block
grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%.
When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
shove, you do what they tell you to.

JPS

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ  wrote:

> Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
> organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
> is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
> and reports as that entity.
>
> Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
> by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> for which there are no reported credible tests.
>
> If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> "Wikimedia".
>
> Fae
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
> >
> > Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
> calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s
> any noticeable difference?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
> rebeccanin...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree Galder!
> > >>
> > >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> > >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
> have
> > >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> very
> > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> editors.
> > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> that
> > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> chapters,
> > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> the
> > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > >
> > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> supporting
> > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> do
> > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> directly
> > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> group/
> > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
> work
> > > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
> we
> > > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
> not, in
> > > themselves, the end goal.
> > >
> > > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
> all of
> > > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
> the
> > > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
> with an
> > > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > > be more amenable to releasing images? If 

[Wikimedia-l] Code of conduct committee call for new members

[Amir Sarabadani]

Hello all,

It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to
serve on the Code of Conduct (CoC) committee. The Code of Conduct Committee
is a team of five trusted individuals plus five auxiliary members with
diverse affiliations responsible for general enforcement of the Code of
conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces. Committee members are in charge of
processing complaints, discussing with the parties affected, agreeing on
resolutions, and following up on their enforcement. For more on their
duties and roles, see
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Committee


This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for
appointment to this committee. Volunteers serving in this role should be
experienced Wikimedians or have had experience serving in a similar
position before.



The current committee is doing the selection and will research and discuss
candidates. Six weeks before the beginning of the next Committee term,
meaning 23th of April 2019, they will publish their candidate slate (a list
of candidates) on-wiki. The community can provide feedback on these
candidates, via private email to the group choosing the next Committee. The
feedback period will be two weeks. The current Committee will then either
finalize the slate, or update the candidate slate in response to concerns
raised. If the candidate slate changes, there will be another two week
feedback period covering the newly proposed members. After the selections
are finalized, there will be a training period, after which the new
Committee is appointed. The current Committee continues to serve until the
feedback, selection, and training process is complete.

If you are interested in serving on this committee or like to nominate a
candidate, please write an email to techconductcandidates AT wikimedia.org
with details of your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the code
of conduct and the committee and what you hope to bring to the role and
whether you have a preference in being auxiliary or constant member of the
committee. The committee consists of five members plus five auxiliary
members and they will serve for a year; all applications are appreciated
and will be carefully considered. The deadline for applications is end of
day on 20th of April, 2019.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think
may be qualified and interested.


Best,

Amir on behalf of the CoC committee
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Philippe Beaudette]

As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put
into words myself.  And like she, I would have been excited about this
brand change several years ago.  But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see
the need for that opportunity then.  I think that moment has passed.  I'm
not sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up
the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value
received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.

Best,
Philippe
(former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)



On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM phoebe ayers  wrote:

>
> Dear all,
> I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question
> underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public
> awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as
> opposed to the projects themselves)?
>
> Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me
> like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content
> to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
> outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
> insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
> number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I
> give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
> Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
> fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
> most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
> isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So
> I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
>
> The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
> as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
> contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
> recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
> invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
> *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
> and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're
> not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
> translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
> organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
>
> Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
> Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world
> of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
> projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
> too, I am skeptical.
>
> regards,
> Phoebe
> (former WMF trustee)
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Fæ]

Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
and reports as that entity.

Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
for which there are no reported credible tests.

If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
"Wikimedia".

Fae



On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
>
> Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling 
> itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any 
> noticeable difference?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Galder!
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
> >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe

--

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes there is a noticeable difference. Costs for changing websites,
stationary and the like are not budgeted for. Given that budgets do not
account for such nonsense it is not an "easy" test. It is also not a test
because when the test proves negative you double the cost.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 10:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:

> Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling
> itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any
> noticeable difference?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Galder!
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not,
> in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all
> of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with
> an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation
> in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe
> > ___
> > 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] Weibel case -- lessons learnt?

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Hello
In a recent blog post *A German court forced us to remove part of a
Wikipedia article’s ‘history.’ Here’s what that means* at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/11/a-german-court-forced-us-to-remove-part-of-a-wikipedia-articles-history-heres-what-that-means/
Jacob
Rogers and Alison Davenport write

> A German court ruled in September of last year that the content was in
fact defamatory, largely because the source in question had been taken
offline—what we call “link rot.”

This is not correct, and suggests that the lessons of this affair have not
been fully taken on board by WMF Legal, and that gives rise to the risk
that they WMF may be giving bad advice to volunteers, leaving them -- and
the Foundation of course -- exposed to further legal claims.

The first reason that the court found that the content was defamatory was
that it was both damaging to Prof, Weibel's reputation and, importantly,
*false*.  The statements relied were irresponsible media speculation.  The
second reason was that under German law the definition of a reliable source
is significantly more restrictive than that commonly held by Wikipedians.
The third reason was that the WMF had failed to respond correctly, in terms
of German law, to Prof. Weibel's complaint.  None of these have anything to
do with "link rot".  If volunteers are left with the impression that they
are somehow safe from libel action in Germany provided that links are kept
up to date, then that is dangerously misleading.  This error is compinded
by the statement

> it does not impose any new editorial standards on individual Wikipedia
contributors

which is incorrect: as noted, the definition of a reliable source in the
applicable law is different from Wikipedia's editorial standards.

If the WMF is claiming to give legal advice to volunteers, it needs to
ensure that the advice it gives is correct.

JPS


>
___
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] [WM-Chairpersons] Wikimedia Chile Board Election

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Congratulations, Rocío!



*Itzik Edri*
Chairperson (volunteer)
it...@wikimedia.org.il
+972-54-5878078



On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:55 AM Marco Correa Pérez <
marco.cor...@wikimediachile.cl> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> *Wikimedia Chile* (WMCL) held its annual General Assembly on April 13th,
> which was also the beginning of a new term of our Board (2019-2021). All
> the members from the 2017-2019 Board were reelected for the next two years,
> and the positions were filled as follows:
>
> - Rocío Consales, Chair;
> - Marco Correa: Vicechair;
> - Carlos Figueroa, Secretary;
> - Osmar Valdebenito, Treasurer;
> - Dennis Tobar, Director:
> - Claudio Loader, Director.
>
> We are glad to have Rocío serving as the new president of WMCL, not just
> for her amazing work as volunteer and Board Member, but also because she is
> the first woman to hold this position in our chapter's history.
> Congratulations, Rocío!
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Marco Correa Pérez*
> Vicechair - Wikimedia Chile
> http://www.wikimediachile.cl
> ___
> Chairpersons mailing list
> chairpers...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/chairpersons
>
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Ed Saperia]

Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling 
itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any 
noticeable difference?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
> wrote:
> 
>> I agree Galder!
>> 
>> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
>> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
>> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
>> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
>> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
>> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
>> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
>> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
>> 
> 
> Dear Rebecca,
> Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> 
> Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> themselves, the end goal.
> 
> So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> Foundation provides, exactly?
> 
> If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> 
> -- Phoebe
> ___
> 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,