[Wikimedia-l] Rejected email (was Copyright on Xrays)
The email was rejected because, as indicated in the bounce message, the email was sent from an address not subscribed to the list. Such emails are not held pending moderation because of the quantity of spam messages. Alex 2012/8/21 Matthew Bowker matthewrbowker.w...@me.com Hi, all. I believe Mike was commenting on the fact that his message was bounced back (because of an email funky) and not the topic itself. In fact, I've been caught by that exact same filter myself. Sorry if I've read your message wrong. Matthew Bowker User:Matthewrbowker On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 08/20/12 2:01 PM, Michael Peel wrote: OK, so the moderation of this mailing list appears to be broken (surely such emails should at least be held for approval by a moderator?). But please see my previous email (which I sent after hitting the 'reply' button)… Thanks, Mike It seems like a perfectly valid topic for this list. Ray ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour
Hi, sorry to fish out a very old message, but since the survey is about to go live, I would like to share some concerns I have about it. Unfortunately, I was on holidays as this announcement came out, so couldn't do it earlier. I find the idea of an editor's survey to be extremely important, since it is (among other) a good indicator of how the editing community perceives the atmosphere in the projects, the evolution of the software and such things. However, I feel this survey is a bit of a missed opportunity on different aspects. There is a mix of feedback about the projects and the community and satisfaction about the WMF, which does not, in my opinion, quite fit together. I find we should separate those things so as to keep people free of personal opinions about what the organisation may or may not do for/with them and let them focus better on their editor's experience as such. Moreover, this would allow for more questions about editing, maybe a short presentation of new tools, rating them etc. which seems to be quite absent from this questionnaire. For example, I would love to see a question in the technology part about whether people want/edit from their mobile device, or if they are familiar with the mobile apps and use them, that kind of stuff. (rationale given for taking these questions out was length of the survey, but I think these things are much more relevant to the well-editing of the contributors than how well they rate the WMF work). Not to mention that trying to get some feedback from sister projects would be good also (Commons is already a good first step). If, however, we're going to mix editor's experience and satisfaction about Wikimedia, I am cruelly missing any kind of feedback question about the work of the chapters and/or other organisations or groups in the Wikimedia Universe that would give people the right scope about what is happening in a more offline kind of way. Of course, we could do a separate survey for chapters, but if we're truly an international movement, then all Wikimedia entities that support/interact with the community probably would benefit from being put in the same bag in order to fine tune their support and help for the Wikimedia communities. Sue in Washington at Wikimania pulled out the results of one question that was asked in the editor's survey about whether people were satisfied about the work of the Foundation and the work of the chapters. She underlined herself that the results to this question were probably difficult to interpret out of the box since at no point in the survey was there a question about whether people were aware that there was a chapter in their country, which would have qulified the results a bit. This was already quite criticized last time, yet the question is still there, unchanged, and without more context than it had last time. (under FINAL THOUGHTS). In short people are asked to rate the Foundation about everything it does, while the chapters are never mentionned, and then people are asked to rate the work of both. Interesting way to look at it. We're doing much better, but there is still some English Wikipedia centrism in Question F2 for example. ;-) : How well do you believe the Foundation supports: English Wikipedia? Wikipedia sites in other languages? Finally, what I regret most, is that so little time was allocated to reviewing this survey collaboratively. There was about 20 days to review, comment, give feedback, translate etc. and this in the mist of the summer holiday for a big part of our community. When I see such processes as the ToS revision [1] conducted successfully allowing for 120 days of discussion, and such surveys rushed through the summer, when their data will probably be used to decide much of the strategic orientation of the next year, I'm thinking we're missing out on trying to collect data that is truly relevant to the work we do and that helps us to review our orientations and adjust how well we support our editing community. Best, Delphine [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Christine Moellenberndt christine...@gmail.com wrote: *Hi everyone, It's been a bit since I last emailed this list (or any list, for that matter!)... you may remember me, I worked at the Foundation last year in the Community Department, working with Philippe on any number of issues, as well as with the OTRS team. I've come back to work on a short term project with the Foundation, and I have to say it's great to be back! (and a great break from my Master's thesis!) We're getting ready to run the next version of the Editor Survey, for August 2012. This will be the third incarnation we've run since 2011. As with the prior incarnations of the survey, we'll be looking at a variety of topics, this time with the goal of not only understanding your needs and pressing issues while interacting with fellow editors, but also focusing on editors' satisfaction with the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not sure she actually said that. In any case, it is wrong - question D6 in the last survey asked if there was a Wikimedia chapter in the country where the respondent lived (https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:December_2011_Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_topline.pdfpage=5 ). My bad, glad it was there. And yes she did. Maybe not in those exact words, but she did put the results into context. This was already quite criticized last time, yet the question is still there, unchanged, and without more context than it had last time. (under FINAL THOUGHTS). We tried to avoid modifying questions in order to preserve consistence and be able to do some longitudinal analysis (as it was already begun for that question in http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=14296 ). So if a question is poorly phrased, we'll continue having it till the end of time to preserve consistency? Mind you, I do want that question in, I just want it within the same context frame that is given to the same question about the Foundation. And I'm also missing a question about other entities that might actually help Wikimedians that we're or we're not aware of. Still, I was aware that there had been some objections to that question by chapter representatives (which I don't assume have to do with the fact that respondents rated chapters' performance lower than that of other entities in the two previous surveys), and looked into these concerns while the present questionnaire was prepared; I also reached out to one of the critics in person at Wikimania. But I still haven't seen a compelling argument why the way the question is asked should be biased against chapters. The argument that the opinion of Wikimedians who live in countries without chapter should not count seems weak to me, e.g. because the projects that the work of chapters aims to support are international, and because the question asked about chapters in general, not one particular chapter. That is not the argument I was trying to make (ie. voices of Wikimedians in a country without chapter don't count). Rather, there is a long list of things the Foundation does, where people are asked whether they knew about it, or not. And after that, right when people have been made aware of everything the Foundation does, they are asked to rate the work of the Foundation. The same question about the chapters comes after absolutely nothing has been said about chapter work, which, I believe, does introduce a bias. In short, people are being asked to rate something they *at this point in the survey* have an idea about (for the WMF) although they might have had no idea about it before starting the survey. All I'm asking is that we review the context in which this question is being asked so results make more sense. In any case, in parallel to preparing the upcoming survey, we have recently been compiling the public dataset with the anonymized responses from the last survey, which was uploaded yesterday here: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/editorsurveynov-dec2011/ Using this, anyone can do the analysis you suggest and check if ratings differed significantly in chapter/non-chapter countries. That's great. Thanks. For the record, I'm not expecting the results to be so extremely different, but I think the fact that they might be or might not be is extremely important to know. Finally, what I regret most, is that o little time was allocated to reviewing this survey collaboratively. There was about 20 days to review, comment, give feedback, translate etc. and this in the mist of the summer holiday for a big part of our community. When I see such processes as the ToS revision [1] conducted successfully allowing for 120 days of discussion, and such surveys rushed through the summer, when their data will probably be used to decide much of the strategic orientation of the next year, I'm thinking we're missing out on trying to collect data that is truly relevant to the work we do and that helps us to review our orientations and adjust how well we support our editing community. Of course there are lots of interesting and important questions that had to be left out of this survey. As said earlier, the idea is to run the editor survey more frequently from now on, probably quarterly and in a more lightweight version, with a different focus in each. That's good news and I hope the collaborative process can be reinforced and more time is allowed for comments, reviews, changes and finetuning. Best, Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On 21 August 2012 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
