Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software

2012-06-25 Thread Michel Vuijlsteke
I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the
Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :)

Michel

On 25 June 2012 06:21, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:

 And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software

2012-06-25 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Jun 25, 2012 5:22 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:

 And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?

FSF are a partner of ours, so I guess it is on topic. I found it
interesting.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia founder's petition: Stop extradition of O'Dwyer

2012-06-25 Thread John Vandenberg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Evolution of political battles (this one on piracy).
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition
 This is currently first on http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (UK news but I've seen
 it on TV while they were showing headlines on Euro 2012...).

The petition text is at

http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard

Richard O'Dwyer is a 24 year old British student at Sheffield Hallam
University in the UK. He is facing extradition to the USA and up to
ten years in prison, for creating a website – TVShack.net – which
linked (similar to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies
online.

O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, he's lived in the UK all his life, his
site was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US.
America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which
took place on UK soil.

The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to
mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand
up for our rights online.

When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer always did his best to play
by the rules: on the few occasions he received requests to remove
content from copyright holders, he complied. His site hosted links,
not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users.

Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and
economic purpose. But that does not mean that copyright can or should
be unlimited. It does not mean that we should abandon time-honoured
moral and legal principles to allow endless encroachments on our civil
liberties in the interests of the moguls of Hollywood.

Richard O'Dwyer is the human face of the battle between the content
industry and the interests of the general public. Earlier this year,
in the fight against the anti-copyright bills SOPA and PIPA, the
public won its first big victory. This could be our second.

This is why I am petitioning the UK's Home Secretary Theresa May to
stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. I hope you will join me.

- Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder

We only have an English Wikipedia article about O'Dwyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software

2012-06-25 Thread David Richfield
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
 I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the
 Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :)

The fact is that Microsoft still effectively levies a tax on most
computers sold, with no way for the consumer to know exactly how much
of the cost of their system is a payment to Redmond, and no way to
recover this cost.

It's long past the '90s, but Microsoft still tries to divide and
conquer by attempting to convince users that they can get sued for
using Linux unless they use a paid-for flavour of SUSE.

Microsoft tries to subvert and avoid any open standards (see ODF [they
implemented it in a way that is incompatible with other
implementations] and OOXML [they built in patent protection to their
format to lock out free implementations, but try to avoid criticism
with vague promises not to sue]) Embrace, Extend, Extinguish still
seems to be their strategy.

They work with free projects when it suits them (and I'm actually
quite grateful for their aerial photography in OpenStreetMap) but we
have to be very very careful whenever we work with them that we don't
get suckered into anything.

Wikimedia stands for freedom, and Microsoft has repeatedly shown
itself to be an enemy of freedom.  They are not to be trusted.

-- 
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-25 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Hi all,

I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
(so called double language links). There are not that many of them
(about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

http://simia.net/languagelinks/

Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances
* they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
* they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
certain reports and also in the respective export

I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
but that list looks rather dead.

Cheers,
Denny

-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-25 Thread Bence Damokos
Hi Denny,

This is a really interesting list.
Looking at the Hungarian list, I find that in many instances the duplicate
interwiki link is actually commented out (in the form of !-- Source:
[[en: something]] -- or !-- wrong interwikis: [[en: ..] [[fr: ..]] --),
and not real duplicate links. (In some cases there are indeed duplicate
links, where one concept covers two concepts in other languages.)

Maybe you could refine your search algorithm to exclude commented out
links, and improve your listing page by including not only the second
interwiki link found for a given language, but also the first one, so it is
easier to assess without having to check the article pages or source codes?

In any case, the village pumps might be a good place to post a link to the
lists. The Global message delivery system might help you in that:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_message_delivery

Best regards,
Bence

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 Hi all,

 I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
 Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
 the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
 link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
 (so called double language links). There are not that many of them
 (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

 http://simia.net/languagelinks/

 Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few
 nuisances
 * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
 same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
 languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
 * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
 certain reports and also in the respective export

 I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
 communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
 version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
 the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
 the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
 but that list looks rather dead.

 Cheers,
 Denny

 --
 Project director Wikidata
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
 Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
 Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
 unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
 Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-25 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
Hi Denny,

TL;DR: It's a very important question, but don't worry about it too
much. Just do Wikidata well as it is currently planned.

Now, the full reply.

I wrote a bit of an essay about it in 2008:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tips_for_resolving_interwiki_conflicts

I also started a page to coordinate the efforts to resolve such conflicts:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_synchronization

It started out nicely, but didn't really scale, so I had no choice but
to neglect it.

There are two main reasons that it didn't scale:
1. Fixing interlanguage links conflicts is an exhausting manual
process. The Interlanguage extension or Wikidata are supposed to make
it centralized and easier.

2. Almost all Wikipedians are very, very reluctant about doing
anything outside their home projects.

So, Wikidata is supposed to resolve #1. Once it becomes active, #2
will kick in again. At this stage, all I can say is our old motto: Be
Bold. There's a rumor about me, which says that I know a lot of
languages. I don't; I'm just bold about trying to edit Wikipedias in
languages that I don't know. Everybody can do it. Most of the time it
turns out to be correct and people don't complain. Trying to talk to
people about this on village pumps and using global message delivery
is not very efficient. In many languages, even in some major ones, the
village pumps are not as active as in English, and even when they are,
people very often ignore messages in English.

Anyway, my proposal is this:
* As discussed at bug 15607 [1], the best strategy for rolling out
centralized language links is to enable them in articles without
conflicts and to leave articles with conflicts without any change at
first.
* After initial roll-out, a list of conflicts for every project should
be created. That is, there should be one list of articles with
conflicts in the English Wikipedia, another list for the Hebrew
Wikipedia, another one for Croatian, etc. This will make it relatively
more accessible for people, because it will look like a problem in
their project. Most people like solving local problems more than
global problems.[2]
* Profit.

I believe that this crowdsourcing model may work. It won't be
immediately perfect or very fast. It's just a sensible start.

[1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15607

[2] A technical implementation comment about the list of pages with
conflicts: it will be most efficient, if it will be implemented as a
special page in each project. If updating it immediately is too
burdensome in terms of performance, it can be updated in batches every
week or so. The reason it should be a special page is that it will
look like an integrated site feature and that it will be easy to
localize its interface.

2012/6/25 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de:
 Hi all,

 I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
 Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
 the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
 link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
 (so called double language links). There are not that many of them
 (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

 http://simia.net/languagelinks/

 Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances
 * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
 same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
 languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
 * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
 certain reports and also in the respective export

 I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
 communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
 version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
 the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
 the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
 but that list looks rather dead.

 Cheers,
 Denny

 --
 Project director Wikidata
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
 Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
 Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
 unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
 Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software

2012-06-25 Thread Kim Bruning
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:21:46PM +1000, K. Peachey wrote:
 And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?

It's Yet Another data point on the list of reasons why net-nannying people is a 
bad idea, and might get you in
NPOVPR hot water (like poor old Microsoft here)
Also, we're friends with the FSF. ;-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-25 Thread Delirium
Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going 
through and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do 
that, that should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki 
links. I second the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could 
be re-run to exclude commented-out links, but the list is still useful 
as is.


There are some difficult cases, though, when languages make different 
choices on how to group subjects, so the articles aren't actually in 
1-to-1 correspondence. For example, the English article [[en: Móði and 
Magni]] unsurprisingly has two outgoing interwiki links, when linking to 
languages that split them, such as [[da:Magni]] and [[da:Modi]]. It's 
not clear what to do about these cases.


Best,
Mark

On 6/25/12 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

Hi all,

I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
(so called double language links). There are not that many of them
(about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

http://simia.net/languagelinks/

Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances
* they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
* they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
certain reports and also in the respective export

I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
but that list looks rather dead.

Cheers,
Denny




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-25 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

So may I guess that double links are usually the result of a
Wikipedian who was not sure which language link to set, so in doubt,
he simply put in the language links for two different articles?

And in general, is it imagineable that different languages divide the
knowledge in different ways, which could jeopardize the whole goal of
Wikidata unifiying the language links?

Kind regards
Ziko


2012/6/25 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
 Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going through
 and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do that, that
 should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki links. I second
 the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could be re-run to
 exclude commented-out links, but the list is still useful as is.

 There are some difficult cases, though, when languages make different
 choices on how to group subjects, so the articles aren't actually in 1-to-1
 correspondence. For example, the English article [[en: Móði and Magni]]
 unsurprisingly has two outgoing interwiki links, when linking to languages
 that split them, such as [[da:Magni]] and [[da:Modi]]. It's not clear what
 to do about these cases.

 Best,
 Mark


 On 6/25/12 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

 Hi all,

 I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
 Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
 the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
 link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
 (so called double language links). There are not that many of them
 (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

 http://simia.net/languagelinks/

 Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few
 nuisances
 * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
 same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
 languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
 * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
 certain reports and also in the respective export

 I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
 communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
 version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
 the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
 the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
 but that list looks rather dead.

 Cheers,
 Denny



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
---

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-25 Thread Steven Walling
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading out
 the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
 diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
 during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC.
 Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled then.
 But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside of
 that narrow window.  So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need to
 engage people who aren't available during normal business hours throughout
 the Western world.  At this point, office hours have essentially become the
 same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever the
 topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm
 misunderstanding.


I'm glad you brought this up Risker, but to be fair, Siebrand can't speak
for everyone scheduling office hours, since there is no one person who
coordinates them all -- each team is responsible for their own, and some
are not associated with the WMF.

Anyway, I'm willing to test out doing this at a different time that's not
during North American working hours. The editor engagement experiments team
is due for another office hours. How does 10:00 UTC next Monday sound?

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012

2012-06-25 Thread Maryana Pinchuk
Hi Pine,

Reviving this thread because it looks like your questions haven't been
answered...

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Erik,

 Thanks for replying. Let me make sure that I understand. The graph at
 http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors isn’t affected by the
 bug, and we still believe that we have a declining number of new editors
 per month. However, the graphs for the number of active editors may be
 wrong, since edit counts may be wrong. Is this correct?

 The bulk of my previous comments would stand even with upward revisions to
 the counts of active editors. WMF is investing multiple staff and what I
 perceive to be a significant amount of financial resources with the goal of
 increasing the number of active editors, and the statistics related to
 these efforts are relevant to the strategic plan. I believe that monthly
 updates would be appropriate and welcome.


If you're asking why we haven't hooked our monthly quantitative metrics up
with the work we're doing on editor retention, the answer is that we're in
the process of transitioning from a system where the metrics were generated
by hand to one that's streamlined and automated, which is technically
complex and will take a bit of setup time. The ultimate goal of automation
is being able to do exactly what you're asking, though, so I think it'll be
worth the wait :)

But yes, you're absolutely right -- we need to be sure to include monthly
updates on all our editor engagement related activities. I'm on the newly
formed editor engagement experiments team, and it looks like our activities
for last month were not listed on this report for some reason (probably
because of aforementioned newness). That's a really unfortunate oversight
on our end, and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. The super-condensed
version: we hired two new team members, prioritized our first group of
experiments, and spec'ed out our first
experimenthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Timestamp_position_modificationfor
launch in June. In the meantime, if you or anyone else is interested
in
our work and want to watch it as it unfolds, you can watchlist our
documentation hubs on English
Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:E3and/or
Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/E3.

Of course, there are other engineering teams working on editor engagement,
too -- I don't want to speak for them, but I will say that especially for
things like the visual editor, it's difficult to report easily digestible
monthly progress, since it's a much longer term project. Editor engagement
experiments should have something to report every month, though; that's the
point of rapid iteration! So thank you for pushing us on this, and don't
hesitate to get in touch with me or Steven Walling if you have more
questions.

Best,
Maryana



 Thanks,

 Pine


 -Original Message-
 From: Erik Zachte ezac...@wikimedia.org
 To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012
 Message-ID: 004b01cd4cca$1ae54430$50afcc90$@wikimedia.org
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 It may well be that the trends are distorted due to major bug in wikistats.
 That bug has been isolated, but we need 7-10 days to regenerate all
 reports.
 See also
 http://infodisiac.com/blog/2012/06/wikistats-editor-counts-are-broken/

 Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience.

 Erik Zachte

 -Original Message-
 From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ENWP Pine
 Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:20 PM
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012

 Tilman,

 Thanks for the report.

 I would like to suggest that for the foreseeable future (not just for
 June),
 these monthly reports should include a fuller set of updates on the editor
 engagement and retention efforts. My understanding is that this is a high
 priority effort for WMF, it seems to involve a fairly significant number of
 WMF FTEs and LTEs, and I think it is of interest to the global Wikimedia
 community.

 Personally I am very concerned about the continuing slide in the number of
 active editors. There are many areas on ENWP where having a few more active
 editors would be very helpful, and I speculate that other projects would
 also appreciate having additional active editors. My concerns are
 illustrated beautifully on some of the graphs here:
 http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors;,
 http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors;, and
 http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors_target;.

 I would like to hear more about what progress is being made to improve the
 trends. We heard about the Teahouse and new initiatives for Arabic
 Wikipedia, which are very good, and I especially appreciated the detailed
 reports on the Teahouse pilot that were sent to ENWP 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-25 Thread Risker
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading
 out
  the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
  diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
  during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC.
  Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled
 then.
  But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside
 of
  that narrow window.  So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need
 to
  engage people who aren't available during normal business hours
 throughout
  the Western world.  At this point, office hours have essentially become
 the
  same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever
 the
  topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm
  misunderstanding.
 

 I'm glad you brought this up Risker, but to be fair, Siebrand can't speak
 for everyone scheduling office hours, since there is no one person who
 coordinates them all -- each team is responsible for their own, and some
 are not associated with the WMF.

 Anyway, I'm willing to test out doing this at a different time that's not
 during North American working hours. The editor engagement experiments team
 is due for another office hours. How does 10:00 UTC next Monday sound?



Well, let's see - that's 7 a.m. Eastern time, and 4 a.m. Pacific, so it's
certainly not North American business hours.  Perhaps the bigger question
is who the target audience is, and whether or not you're likely to attract
it during that time.

Now, it's entirely possible that the WMF staff and those of other projects
using the usual timeslot have decided that their target audience is the
people who are available during that timeslot (I don't think Wikidata's
ever had an office hours outside of the same slot, for example).  However,
I know that a very significant percentage of Wikimedians are not able to
participate during those hours, and the effect is strongly exclusionary. In
many cases, those office hours are really the only way to keep current and
participate in the discussion of various projects, unless one has a direct
pipeline to one or more of the project co-ordinators.

I'm the world's worst wikitable creator, and even I can see how these
constant overlaps can be avoided by creating a table on Meta to map out
which office hours will occur when and having rules about how many office
hours can be in a given two- or three-hour period.  For example, the rule
could be only 50% of office hours can start between 1600 and 1830 each
month or no more than two office hours in a row can start between 1600
and 1830, if you're the third one then you have to choose another time, or
unless you are trying to reach a specific identified target audience, half
of any project's office hours must be held  outside of North
American/European business hours of 0800 UTC to 2000 UTC.

There are sometimes good reasons for holding office hours consistently at a
specific time, most particularly if there is a desire to draw in editors
from a certain geographic area, or if that is the time that a specific
language group finds most convenient. But if the subject is intended to
have global effects, then there needs to be variety in the timing so that a
wider range of voices can participate. If it's something primarily focused
at English Wikipedia, the office hours have to be late enough for North
Americans to attend outside of business hours, at least some of the time,
and some thought should also be given to ensuring our ANZA editors can also
be included, at least some of the time.

Now, none of this is specifically about Siebrand's office hours. It's about
the fact that this consistent scheduling implies nobody's interested in
hearing from those who aren't available during the San Francisco mornings.

Best,

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-25 Thread Sue Gardner
I think the top slot in the poll I took was Saturdays, either 11AM to noon
SF time (6PM-7PM UTC, going from memory) or noon to one SF time (7PM-8PM
UTC).

I am totally fine with either of those times, and so I will volunteer to do
my next office hours in one of those slots. Normally I'm scheduled via, and
accompanied by, Steven or sometimes Philippe. I'd like Steven to get me
scheduled (please), but Steven you don't need to come moderate: I can
probably just handle it by myself :-)

So, Wikimedia Foundation staff can turn up if they're online and free and
feel like it, but nobody should feel compelled to attend just because
they're on the staff. Like I said, I don't mind doing it -- arguably it's
easier for me than squeezing it into the middle of other meetings. But I
don't think the value-add of other staff being there necessitates them
breaking into the middle of their weekends.

Hope this makes sense for people. If we draw a different crowd that hasn't
otherwise been able to attend, we can figure out how to do more of it in a
way that works for staff -- meaning, we can lean on weekends when people
are travelling for work anyway, or are for some reason available and game.

Thanks,
Sue
On Jun 25, 2012 7:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  Well, let's see - that's 7 a.m. Eastern time, and 4 a.m. Pacific, so it's
  certainly not North American business hours.  Perhaps the bigger question
  is who the target audience is, and whether or not you're likely to
 attract
  it during that time.
 

 I'm sorry, I forgot to check a box on one of those stupid time converters.
 I meant 22:00 UTC that day. That's late afternoon SF time and the early
 evening for the rest of the continent.

 The poll Sue took also suggested maybe we should try holding some on
 Saturdays. That might not be preferable for all staffers, but some of us
 don't mind.

 Steven
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l