Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review
Hoi, How will you cope in other languages, other scripts. Is engaging all over the world NOT in English a consideration> Thanks, GerardM On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 05:34, Zack McCune wrote: > Hi Tito - > > Your observation is fair and welcome. The project team will update the > timeline on Meta-Wiki to reflect the latest rescheduling and our relaunched > consultations. > > The priority is on completing the collaborative design activities of the > project (naming, design, and style guides) in time for the birthday in > January. The process of adoption will follow the completion of this work, > so it too will be adjusted in the timeline. > > The project team is working to keep this timeline as accurate as we can > amidst much global uncertainty, so I want to be the first to acknowledge > that timing will likely remain at the monthly estimate level and may > further change. > > Thanks, > > - Zack > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Tito Dutta wrote: > > > With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in > case > > it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith): > > The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms > its > > support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the > > movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the > Foundation > > to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday." > > – what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021? > > I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On Meta-Wiki > > the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational > > implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for > > affiliates. > > I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in > > naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of > > Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with > direct > > attention. > > Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process? > > Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there was > > always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no". > > Sincerely, > > User:Titodutta > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020) > > [2] > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership) > > > > Thanks > > Tito Dutta > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to > remind > > me over email or phone call. > > > > > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > From the resolution page ( > > > > > > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020) > > > : > > > "... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by > > > Wikipedia's 20th birthday." > > > — That is 15 January 2021. Interesting. > > > It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options. > > > Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need more > > > than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. . > > > Thanks > > > User:Titodutta > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > >> > > >> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss > > >> names > > >> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16 > > >> June. > > >> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect: > > >> > > >> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the > Board > > >> of > > >> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three > > >> naming > > >> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June. > > >> > > >> The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted > > >> various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications > > of > > >> different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to > act > > >> as > > >> compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing > > and > > >> ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the > > >> movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention > proposals > > >> centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an > open > > >> response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals. > > We > > >> feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals, > > while > > >> we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas and are committed to > > >> reviewing suggestions made in the open response area. > > >> > > >> While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures > > centered > > >> entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially > > >> responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Early thoughts regarding a global code of conduct and a GCC committee
Hoi, To help you remember, we had such situations in the past, they were resolved. It was ultimately the language committee who stopped Wikipedias. Background it is this same language committee who is instrumental in starting new projects. On a different topic. Diversity and bias is very much topical at this time. At the same time we, the Wikimedia Foundation (org and movement) are in a position to diminish the bias against all the other languages. A first iteration of Special:MediaSearch [1] is available on Commons. It allows you to find a cat in Amharic or Chinese, Korean, Kannada, Kiswahili and Dutch. It is the first iteration of the official multi lingual search support of the WMF. It can be localised. With a bit of effort it becomes available on all of our projects. What it takes to make Commons usable; * access of everyone to this search functionality * localisation at translatewiki.net * labels in commons * pictures that are to are know depict The most important thing that will make this happen; is recognition that this requires commitment, it is considered that it is the primary objective it is (motto: "All of @WikiCommons is available to every single person on the planet"). It is important to understand that with finite resources, your hobby horse may take a backseat. You should embrace it because "other languages" matter. PS oh yes, and it works best in English anyway. Thanks, GerardM [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=paka-kaya [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=paka-kaya On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W wrote: > Hello, > > This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it > comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the > 2030 strategy process (see > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20). > I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share. > > I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could > be good in some limited but important circumstances: > > (1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct > review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that > removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other > authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a > relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's > governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that > peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order. > > In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt > to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a > small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries. > > By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good > faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local > arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct > committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions > and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate. > These default positions may be changed if there is significant > evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by > outsiders. > > (2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person > in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their > position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve > publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason > for privacy. > > (3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault > with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends > that individuals be sanctioned. > > (4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban. > > I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of > conduct committee for: > > (1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of > individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be > overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local > administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a > project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to > address these disputes. > > (2) content disputes. > > (3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or > acting as an extension of WMF. > > (4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making > people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of > heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale. > Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable > debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is > not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or > publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these > issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best >
