Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Affiliations Committee : Wikimedia India's Demand For A Fair And Transparent Hearing
Hello, I do not have all the answers and mostly I want more information myself! I am sympathetic to Wikimedia India's situation. Personally, I agree with Abhinav about all these things. I will not make judgements about right and wrong or correct and incorrect, but for anyone who is just joining the Wikimedia Movement conversation about India, here are what I identify as the recurring conflicts between the WMF and the wiki India community since ~2010. spending money in India without community participation The Wikimedia Foundation makes large financial investments in India without being open about it and without getting Wikimedia community buy-in. The biggest projects rely on paid staff who will not collaborate with any existing Wikimedia community members. asking the India community to avoid public conversation The Wikimedia Foundation continually requests closed conversation about any conflict or controversy in India. The WMF argument is that discretion helps resolve the issue. The downside is that lack of documentation keeps the various Indian Wiki people from becoming aware that the problems repeat themselves. A very discouraging situation is when multiple communities in India all have the same problem, and the WMF has asked them all to be quiet about it, telling them each that they were the only ones having this problem. If they come to know they each experienced the same problem with the same request for silence, then they are all discouraged. cultural blunders The Wikimedia Foundation makes decisions without the participation of the local community and therefore makes blunders when trying to do things for the local community. In a typical blunder, the WMF will spend lots of money doing something which makes sense in the Western world but which makes no sense in India. The local community gets shocked by the waste of money and simultaneously wonders about other WMF investment in India. If I made one request for intervention, it would be for the WMF to report all financial and labor investment in India for the past 10 years and going forward annually. If the money was public then I think all the other challenges would come into open conversation as well. Here for example is a video from 10 years ago where Jimbo mentions the Wikimedia Foundation office in India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXD1TRGafQ0&feature=youtu.be&t=150 The WMF has a unique relationship with India and it would be helpful that if there is to be investment then the money should be in the open. Strangely - at the same time as the WMF is shutting down Wikimedia India, it is also making a major push to do fundraising in India. This came out just a few days ago. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2019-July/014194.html What Abhinav is talking about in his letter is the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee suspending recognition of Wikimedia India in September. There are a lot of good people in the Wikimedia India chapter who report being disturbed by the WMF's treatment of them. I do not blame the WMF exactly, but no one can go into a foreign culture and expect it to adapt. The part about this that bothers me the most is the years of precedent of only talking about India-related challenges in secret. AffCom and the WMF are silent about problems. See the talk pages - there is nothing there - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_India https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/News Losing a chapter is a big deal! Where is the discussion about this? What is the Wikimedia community supposed to think, and how are we supposed to respond, if we hear that the Wikimedia chapter in India is closing but there are no on-wiki records of problems and no discussion about this? Wikimedia India is a community of our colleagues, how do we help? Of course I do not want the chapter to get a punishment especially without public discussion. If anyone wants to get involved, check out Wikimedia India's reports and comment about them on the main Wikimedia India talk page. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_India#Wikimedia_India If they look to be in order then say so. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_India Anything to start a conversation helps. yours, On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 4:50 AM Abhinav srivastava wrote: > Dear Friends From Affcom, > > I am posting an open public request for your notice of Suspension moved at > Wikimedia India (WMIN) which we continue to contest and to our ignored > demand of having a public hearing as shared with you all over mail and > shared again here under Annexure [A]. You have taken an official position > on suspension without even hearing us even once, unexplained accusations > have been provided and we continue to believe Affcom has been > insufficiently investigating facts before making judgements. We repeatedly > over and over again provided justifications over Mail but
[Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Affiliations Committee : Wikimedia India's Demand For A Fair And Transparent Hearing
Dear Friends From Affcom, I am posting an open public request for your notice of Suspension moved at Wikimedia India (WMIN) which we continue to contest and to our ignored demand of having a public hearing as shared with you all over mail and shared again here under Annexure [A]. You have taken an official position on suspension without even hearing us even once, unexplained accusations have been provided and we continue to believe Affcom has been insufficiently investigating facts before making judgements. We repeatedly over and over again provided justifications over Mail but you never took them to your notice and only over calls you heard us, provided your rationale for expectation gaps but never took our oral commentary which refutes your claims,in any action, anywhere. Now you say WMIN won’t remain a Chapter after 14th September and be transformed into a User Group. Republic of India happens to be one of the only few countries where besides volunteer driven Chapter and User Groups has a full-time staff based WMF’s Allied Organisation CIS-A2K [1]. Wikimedia India activities [2] may be less due to no source of funds [3] however, Community Members from India put their efforts, strive hard to take the movement ahead. Whether it be the previous financial year or the present, no Wikimedia Foundation Grants like Rapid Grant, Project Grant etc have been applied by Wikimedia India members to support any Chapter activity. They remain self-financed. We received your notice last year when Wikimedia India was contesting a dispute with CIS-A2K over attribution grabbing for our self-financed projects and ignoring Chapter at important National level initiaves [4]. While working with virtually no source of funds and struggles with WMF’s Allied Organisation, your notice of suspension was the least bad we could have had. We continue to contest your suspension notice. It was Suo Moto (on its own) decision making and as found and re-stated above and below in detail, there were gaps and misunderstanding in your basis. We also continue to contest there has been a Rush-to-decision making. No written responses via Mail to Chapter’s clarification are being provided and invitation for calls are initiated where brief responses are shared on a Cloud Document. It has been subsequently found by both parties on there being gaps in communication. However, even after clarity during call, Affcom has not taken any action over them. The basis of your suspension notice has been shared here for the wider audience. 1. Legal Structure : Affcom asked Wikimedia India to resolve and obtain its necessary license in order to obtain funds. At present, as per Government of India restrictions it is difficult to obtain foreign funding. Wikimedia India informed the Affcom on roughly 13,000 Non-Government Organisations (NGO)s [5] are struggling with a similar crisis to which Affcom responded, “reconsider applying for a User Group.” and “no evidence that the current organization’s leadership will be able to drive this problem toward resolution”. Chapter efforts and commitment in resolving the said crisis cannot be dusted in few words. A Government restrictive policy which has an impact on 13,000 NGOs and Affcom finding flaws in WMIN Board Members capability. WMIN would leave it for public interpretation. Why not a capability audit for hosting zero-budget activities? While most of the time are being spent on resolving the said crisis, WMIN continues to undertake activities as listed. Taking the Open Knowledge Movement forward remains a commitment for the Chapter irrespective of whatsoever political climate may remain. Affcom was asked two questions respectively in this regard however no response has been attained. The questions are 1. Would zero-budget activities, those self-financed not meet sufficiency ? Please elaborate for us to stand better and to improve upon. 2. Would resolving Legal Structure and being able to receive WMF Grants be a necessary criteria for WMIN to meet sufficiency or continued activities not meet the fulfilment criteria? (2) Open Governance : Affcom informed Chapter that a member needs to be in physical presence at the Chapter Assembly to cast vote and raise voice and asked The Chapter to change its bylaws. This information is anything but false. This was communicated during the Call but Affcom did not bring anything in action. Also, as per the Chapter Agreement between WMF and WMIN, a copy of bylaws was provided in English Language to WMF. The bylaws were approved by the then Chapter’s Council. No evidence has been brought to notice on WMIN violating the Clause 7.2 of the Chapter’s Agreement, “The Wikimedia Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this Agreement.” (3) Active Contributor Involv
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an effect on how one relates to the world. On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin Ikuta wrote: > > > As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this. > > See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism > > > > On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen wrote: > > > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage > > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn > Pokemon, > > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with > > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later > > get it done with "populated places" and the like too. > > > > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub > > "article". > > > > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any > > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate > > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet > > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an > > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to > > show sourcing immediately. > > > > Todd > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic > editing > >> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has > >> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads > at > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples. > >> > >> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because > we > >> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the > >> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last > >> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, > >> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. > I > >> would have voted to accept cases , and and > >> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction > , > >> z" > >> > >> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the > >> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued > >> for, among other things: > >> > >> > >> 1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly > >> to blocks. > >> 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article > >> creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins > find > >> them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours > >> 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing > edits. > >> > >> > >> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic > >> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for > example > >> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit > conflict > >> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents > where > >> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one > >> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some > deletionists > >> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline > >> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct. > >> > >> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be > >> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter > people > >> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different > versions > >> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their > >> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some > other > >> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture > might > >> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm > being > >> nuanced and diplomatic. > >> > >> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have > communicated > >> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF > >> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem > >> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some > >> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on > Wikipedia. > >> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew > what > >> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might > >> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support > >> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed > reason > >> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was > now > >> an invisib
