Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation for Education Office hours, June 2020

[Sailesh Patnaik]

Reminder, The Education office hour is happening in 3 hours.
Join us then by this link: https://meet.google.com/oyg-douk-bpm


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:14 PM Sailesh Patnaik 
wrote:

> Juhar everyone,
>
> In case you have missed the agenda for the Education office hours, you can
> bring any topic for discussion and share your work (mostly related to use
> of Wikimedia projects in education). This time we will be joined by the
> Reading Wikipedia [1] research fellows, know about the project and how the
> fellowship helped them understand the Wikimedia community, also we will
> have Edna and Praveen, the regional managers for Partnership in Latin
> America and South Asia and my colleagues from the education team to answer
> your questions and see how they can support your work.
>
> Join us on 25th June 2020 at 12:00 PM UTC
>
> Best!
> Sailesh
>
> [1]
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/About/Education_Team/Reading_Wikipedia_in_the_Classroom
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:31 PM Sailesh Patnaik 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi everyone,
>>
>> This is an invitation to join the monthly education office hours! The o
>> ffice hours are a dedicated time and an online space to have
>> conversations and discussions related to Wikimedia and education activities,
>> listen and learn from each other's projects and activities. Join us for
>> the month of June on 25th June 2020 at 12:00 PM UTC.
>>
>> You can find details to join the meeting here:
>> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/About/Office_Hours/June_25_2020
>>
>> Looking forward to seeing you all then, Please let me know if you have
>> any questions.
>>
>> Do you want to reach out to the education team for a 1:1 consultation?
>> Request for a slot for Education Office Space (
>> ttps://outreach.wikimedia. org/wiki/Education/About/Office_Space
>>  ) by
>> filling this google form ( http://bit.ly/EduOfficeSpace )
>>
>> Dhanyabaad!
>> --
>> *Sailesh Patnaik*
>> Program Coordinator, Education
>>
>
>
> --
> *Sailesh Patnaik*
> Program Coordinator, Education
>


-- 
*Sailesh Patnaik*
Program Coordinator, Education
___
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] The Wikipedia Library - new technical improvements and partnerships now available

[Sam Walton]

Hi all,

The Wikipedia Library team at the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to
announce new technical improvements to the Library Card platform and the
addition of 6 new publisher collections. If you’re an active editor who
would find free access to paywalled reliable sources useful for your
contributions, log in now to see what you can access:
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

More than half of the publishers available through the library can now be
accessed directly through the Library Card platform, rather than requiring
an individual account to be set up and maintained for each. Additionally,
the Library Bundle provides immediate access to 60% of our content with no
application required!

We’re also excited to announce that 6 new publishers have joined the
program, including ProQuest, Springer Nature, and the Central and Eastern
European Online Library.

You can read more about these changes in the blog post we just published:
https://space.wmflabs.org/2020/06/24/simplifying-your-research-needs-the-wikipedia-library-launches-new-technical-improvements-and-partnerships/

We hope you find these resources useful, and would love to hear your
feedback at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Library_Card_platform/Authentication-based_access

Best,
Sam

-- 
Sam Walton
Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation

swal...@wikimedia.org
___
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] Digest of Wikimedia Clinic #002; updates on schedule; Wikimedia clinic in Spanish!

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear Wikimedians,

We have now published the digest of Wikimedia Clinic #002[1]. If you missed
previous announcements about the Wikimedia Clinic idea, please see its page
on Meta[2].

As announced, it contains a compact summary of the topics discussed,
augmented by links and some follow-up information that was not available
during the call.  I invite you to skim the topic list and see if there's
something of interest for you.

Upcoming Wikimedia Clinic calls are:

Call #004 - Sunday(!), June 28th, 17:30 UTC [3]
Call #005 - Wednesday, July 1st, 17:30 UTC [4]

Also, we are experimenting with a Wikimedia Clinic in Spanish!  It is still
being scheduled, and I will keep you posted as soon as the date and time
are known.  That call will be held primarily in Spanish (everyone is
welcome, of course), and will welcome discussions in Spanish.

Cheers,

Asaf

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Clinics/002
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Clinics
[3] https://meet.google.com/wcu-arcq-jxg
[4] https://meet.google.com/eqo-qokn-mwj

Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)

Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities

Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more on
the other mailing lists (For example:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
)

Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
"neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ&oldid=20200949.
It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.

Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?

(Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)

Regards,
User:Titodutta



On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 16:57, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 02:07, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
>> ... ...
>> FAQ 2.6: "... findings of the 2030 research and planning community review
>> [link to email],"
>> -- Perhaps a "link to email" is missing? If it so, it's a minor thing of
>> course and can be fixed.
>>
> -- While revisiting the page I saw the changes have been made. Perhaps a
> response to the email could have been better, anyway, thanks for making
> changes on the FAQ
>
> Comment in personal capacity, thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>>
>> 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 Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 23:22, David Gerard  wrote:
>>
>>> I think at this point, someone needs to answer: who has predetermined
>>> this outcome?
>>>
>>> It's clear nobody at (say) Samir's level can or will answer this
>>> question - just repeat the same things again, as if nobody ever
>>> objected.
>>>
>>> So precisely who is so gung-ho for this idea?
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 13:58, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello,
>>> > My comments are in a personal capacity, and kindly note my posts are
>>> not
>>> > directed towards anyone specifically/at all. Sincere thanks for
>>> > understanding these two points.
>>> >
>>> > " We recommend you to have a look at these updates before making
>>> further
>>> > conclusions here.
>>> > -- Thanks for the recommendation. Kindly do not assume that we are not
>>> > reading the updates "before making further conclusions here".
>>> >
>>> > " the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
>>> about
>>> > it"
>>> > --Yes, RfC needs a closure/summary, from which we get action points.
>>> Now,
>>> > there is something called WP:INVOLVED. Someone who is
>>> > supporting/opposing/promoting/demoting an idea or in other words
>>> someone
>>> > who is "involved" often may not close or summarise a debate/discussion
>>> with
>>> > due weight to all the arguments. As a result, conclusions may be
>>> faulty,
>>> > and action points may not reflect the actual opinion of the RfC.
>>> Example
>>> > below.
>>> >
>>> > FAQ: Why is this project moving forward after the RfC resulted in clear
>>> > majority opposition?
>>> > (
>>> >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ#Why_is_this_project_moving_forward_after_the_RfC_resulted_in_clear_majority_opposition
>>> > ?)
>>> > -- Even after reading the answer I also don't understand "why?" A
>>> point I
>>> > get there is "exploring further options". On the report page, "What is
>>> > happening with the feedback?" (intended action points section perhaps)
>>> is
>>> > taking me to FAQ page. From the FAQ page the last paragraph sends me
>>> back
>>> > to the report page, making it a loop.
>>> >
>>> > " The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
>>> > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
>>> > itself. "
>>> > -- unlike other statements here any footnote or reference is not given.
>>> > Would love to learn what are those activities and how was the RfC
>>> feedback
>>> > integrated into the agenda/activity. (Please note that I have read the
>>> > brand workshop report.)
>>> >
>>> > That's all for now, with regards, and good wishes during the global
>>> > pandemic time,
>>> > User:Titodutta
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 14:19, Samir Elsharbaty <
>>> selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a
>>> summary
>>> > > about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project
>>> page [3]
>>> > > in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the
>>> development
>>> > > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
>>> > > itself.
>>> > >
>>> > > The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ
>>> [4]. The
>>> > > RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project
>>> talk page
>>> > > [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever
>>> they
>>> > > are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before
>>> making
>>> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Quim Gil]

Hi Tito,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
> sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more on
> the other mailing lists (For example:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
> )
>
> Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
> "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ&oldid=20200949
> .
> It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
>
> Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
>
> (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
>

As the person who published that notice...

I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The Neutrality
notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.

Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms (including
FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting or
reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.

Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed.  :)  If anyone
wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the FAQ
and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pete Forsyth]

As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to make
a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding
project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it.

1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ
about the aims and philosophy of the WMF's rebranding project, and (b) a
FAQ about the general concept of rebranding, and the community's views on
the matter.

2. It seems reasonable to me that WMF staff have authority over (a), but
certainly not over (b).

3. WMF staff could also, if they so choose, use the Wikimedia "governance
wiki" (wiki.wikimediafoundation.org) to host (a); so the choice to post it
on Meta Wiki itself might be questioned.

4. In an ideal world, community views on as important a topic as rebranding
would be clearly synthesized into a document like a FAQ first, to a point
where people advocating for various positions could agree that the basic
information presented is accurate. (This is more or less the consensus
process we use on Wikipedia and other projects.) Once that is done, it
would be a fairly trivial matter for WMF to construct a FAQ, echoing or
even incorporating the language already agreed to, that would both express
its own objectives and views, and also honor opposing views.

5. These points, in my view, all point to the position expressed in recent
days and weeks by many community members, i.e., that this process has been
conducted in a way that is either too fast, or too poorly structured, or
both, to establish a solid (excuse the word) foundation for a good decision.

As a short comment on this disagreement, though, I think WMF staff has two
simple options: (a) Move the FAQ to a site clearly under its own control,
like the "Governance Wiki," or (b) permit the Meta Wiki community to assess
the neutrality of the page. Neither option seems like a particularly bad
one to me, so I'm a little surprised to see this spilling over onto the
mailing list.

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi Tito,
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
> > sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more on
> > the other mailing lists (For example:
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
> > )
> >
> > Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
> > "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ&oldid=20200949
> > .
> > It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
> >
> > Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
> >
> > (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
> >
>
> As the person who published that notice...
>
> I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The Neutrality
> notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
> placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
> several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
> quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.
>
> Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
> been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
> not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms (including
> FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting or
> reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
> more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
> by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
> some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.
>
> Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
> Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed.  :)  If anyone
> wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
> discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the FAQ
> and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> 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.wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pete Forsyth]

My apologies for the error, the "Governance Wiki" URL is:

foundation.wikimedia.org

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to
> make a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding
> project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it.
>
> 1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ
> about the aims and philosophy of the WMF's rebranding project, and (b) a
> FAQ about the general concept of rebranding, and the community's views on
> the matter.
>
> 2. It seems reasonable to me that WMF staff have authority over (a), but
> certainly not over (b).
>
> 3. WMF staff could also, if they so choose, use the Wikimedia "governance
> wiki" (wiki.wikimediafoundation.org) to host (a); so the choice to post
> it on Meta Wiki itself might be questioned.
>
> 4. In an ideal world, community views on as important a topic as
> rebranding would be clearly synthesized into a document like a FAQ first,
> to a point where people advocating for various positions could agree that
> the basic information presented is accurate. (This is more or less the
> consensus process we use on Wikipedia and other projects.) Once that is
> done, it would be a fairly trivial matter for WMF to construct a FAQ,
> echoing or even incorporating the language already agreed to, that would
> both express its own objectives and views, and also honor opposing views.
>
> 5. These points, in my view, all point to the position expressed in recent
> days and weeks by many community members, i.e., that this process has been
> conducted in a way that is either too fast, or too poorly structured, or
> both, to establish a solid (excuse the word) foundation for a good decision.
>
> As a short comment on this disagreement, though, I think WMF staff has two
> simple options: (a) Move the FAQ to a site clearly under its own control,
> like the "Governance Wiki," or (b) permit the Meta Wiki community to assess
> the neutrality of the page. Neither option seems like a particularly bad
> one to me, so I'm a little surprised to see this spilling over onto the
> mailing list.
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM Quim Gil  wrote:
>
>> Hi Tito,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>>
>> > Greetings,
>> > There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
>> > sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more
>> on
>> > the other mailing lists (For example:
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
>> > )
>> >
>> > Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
>> > "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ&oldid=20200949
>> > .
>> > It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
>> >
>> > Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
>> >
>> > (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
>> >
>>
>> As the person who published that notice...
>>
>> I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The
>> Neutrality
>> notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
>> placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
>> several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
>> quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.
>>
>> Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
>> been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
>> not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms
>> (including
>> FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting
>> or
>> reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
>> more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
>> by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
>> some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.
>>
>> Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
>> Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed.  :)  If anyone
>> wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
>> discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the
>> FAQ
>> and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.
>>
>> --
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> 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:/