[Wikimedia-l] Changes to Rapid Grants - Effective August 1, 2019

2019-07-01 Thread Woubzena Jifar
Hello all,

Hope this email finds you well. We are sending this message to select
community mailing lists and all previous recipients of Wikimedia Foundation
Rapid Grants.

As you know the Rapid Grants Program
 [1] has played an
important role in helping our communities to grow. The number of grants we
have given out grew by 30% between FY16 -17 to this fiscal year, and they
grew by 55% when measured by the total amount disbursed. (See the spending
analysis

[2] for reference.*)

While communities have valued these flexible funding opportunities, on our
part, it hasn’t been easy to measure and track their impact. We therefore
will be implementing a number of changes in Fiscal Year 19/20, starting *August
1 2019*, to sharpen the focus and impact of rapid grants, whilst at the
same time maintaining the quick and flexible funding options for community:

1) In the months specified below, we will prioritize support to *contests
and campaigns* which have been an exciting source of growth in editorship,
innovative participation and content generation by communities. These
months will be solely dedicated to different contests and campaigns
throughout the year:

   - *August*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Monuments*
   - *September*: only receiving proposals for *Awareness Grants*
   (campaign)
   - *December*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Africa *
   - *January*: only receiving proposals for *Art + Feminism* (campaign)
   - *March*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Earth*

2) Outside the months specified above, proposals are welcomed in all other
categories: edit-a-thons, contests, photowalks, general promotion
campaigns, and video campaigns. For added flexibility, we will also
consider proposals outside of these categories, such as software
development. However, we will no longer be providing rapid grants for
travel support, equipment purchase or meetups.

3) We will evaluate each batch of grants once a month and accept the best
proposals in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation’s medium-term goals.

We will share the evaluation for the Rapid Grants Program that led us to
sharpen the focus for the program once the evaluation is completed by
September 30, 2019. In addition to these changes, we’ve also considered
comments around Wikimedia Foundation Rapid Grants eligibility criteria and
have clarified these criteria. Please take the time to re-familiarize
yourselves with the Wikimedia Foundation Rapid Grants Guidelines and
Criteria  [4]
page.

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Medium-term

[3] plan goals are set out here for information.

If you have any questions, please email us at .

Best regards,
Woubzena

*Please note that we have not yet put out the final FY 2018-19 numbers and
we’re basing this calculation based on up to date internal numbers of 184
grants and $270,194.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_spending_analysis

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn

Woubzena Jifar (pronouns - she/her/hers)

Program Officer, Rapid Grants

User: WJifar (WMF)

Wikimedia Foundation 
___
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] Banning real identities

2019-07-01 Thread Todd Allen
Well, first off, there's no guarantee that anyone even knows their real
name. They could find mine, sure, but then I've never made an attempt to
keep it secret. I suspect many editors never have given out their real
name, and publishing a guess would be unethical beyond belief.

But just no, in any case. That seems a purely punitive measure. Certainly,
if the person's real identity is known, they might want to inform, for
example, site security staff at WMF events, as that's a "need to know" type
situation. But I see absolutely no reason to release it to the general
public. That's just doxing as a punishment, and I think that's absolutely
unethical and we're a lot better than that.

Even if we must ban someone from our communities, we should do everything
possible (and everything as far as they'll allow) to let them go in peace
and with dignity, and, again if they will, to make a clean break of it. We
shouldn't take the opportunity to kick them while they're down, even if the
ban was richly deserved.

Todd

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Thomas Townsend 
wrote:

> All,
>
> In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and
> inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence,
> let's look at one of the aspects that is made public.  When the WMF
> issues a WMF Global Ban in line with
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it  has been in
> the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List
>
> This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in,
> but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather
> than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed
> against an individual instead of against a specific username") but
> applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well
> as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the
> Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real
> name.
>
> Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under
> their real names, where known?  In answer to one likely objection:
> this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the
> Wikimedia community.  People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer
> members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably
> removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they
> are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").
>
> The Turnip
>
> ___
> 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] Banning real identities

2019-07-01 Thread Isaac Olatunde
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this
will serve? Well, I don't think WMF would log  global banned users by their
real for  a number of reasons and I don't see any reason why they should
start doing that.

Regards,

Isaac
___
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] Banning real identities

2019-07-01 Thread Thomas Townsend
All,

In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and
inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence,
let's look at one of the aspects that is made public.  When the WMF
issues a WMF Global Ban in line with
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it  has been in
the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List

This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in,
but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather
than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed
against an individual instead of against a specific username") but
applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well
as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the
Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real
name.

Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under
their real names, where known?  In answer to one likely objection:
this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the
Wikimedia community.  People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer
members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably
removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they
are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").

The Turnip

___
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 DC Statement on Terms of Use Enforcement

2019-07-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
In the first instance this is not about preventing harassment, it is the
reckoning off harassment past. A reckoning of actors of what they see as
acceptable or reasonable behavior. This has been on the radar for at least
as long as Wikimania London. They could have seen this coming in the recent
policies about safe practices. Now the chickens have come to roost. It is
not about particular instances, there masy have been the one that triggered
all this but that is in essence inconsequential.

Wikipedia is not a democracy where the system is to be gamed only by those
who have a stake in the process. With this crackdown we may lose quality
contributors in the short term. That is sad. However when this has as a
result an environment that is more welcoming it is well worth it.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 00:46, Lucas Teles  wrote:

> Thanks for the statement. I am pretty sure that everyone agrees with what
> is stated. However, the statement doesn't address the main and real issue.
> We have to identify the issue in order to take action against it. The said
> controversy doesn't have to do with preventing harassment - which is
> something we all agree that has to be done -, but it has to do with the way
> it was done. At the eyes of many community users, unnecessary lack of
> transparency was applied on this case with  no chance for defense and no
> explanation on why it was no left to be solved by ArbCom.
>
> If you are concerned - as I am -, I don't think we should discuss if
> harassment is good or bad. It is obviously bad. We should discuss the
> procedure and bring material for a real change.
>
> Teles
>
>
> *Lucas Teles*
>
> *+55 (71) 99707 6409Steward and Ombudsman for Wikimedia projects.
> Administrator *
> *at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.Strategy Liaison for
> Wikimedia Foundation.*
>
>
> Em dom, 30 de jun de 2019 às 16:32, Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
> > https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press:Statement_on_Terms_of_Use_enforcement
> >
> > June 30, 2019
> >
> > Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that
> > have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy
> > regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Protecting editors from harassment is crucial to the continued success of
> > the Wikimedia movement. Many of us have been targets of harassment as a
> > result of our contributions to the Wikimedia projects, and have witnessed
> > harassment of our colleagues, and we are grateful to the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's Trust & Safety team for their support in those incidents.
> >
> > We make no judgement on the case at the center of the current controversy
> > as the Foundation—as per long-standing practice to protect the privacy of
> > all concerned—did not identify the specifics of the behavior publicly. We
> > are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process.
> However,
> > in light of these events, we publicly affirm our support for the
> following
> > principles:
> >
> >
> >- We support the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts in general to make the
> >English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all
> backgrounds
> > and
> >gender identities.
> >- We believe there are circumstances where the Wikimedia Foundation
> >should take action against individual editors who violate the Terms of
> > Use
> >when it is necessary to protect people of all backgrounds and gender
> >identities.
> >- We support collaboration between the Foundation and the English
> >Wikipedia community to inform the policies and processes surrounding
> > these
> >efforts.
> >- We oppose the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language
> >in all Wikimedia discussions, and encourage the community to avoid it,
> >regardless of context or intent.
> >
> >
> > Board of Directors
> > Wikimedia District of Columbia
> > ___
> > 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: