[Wikimedia-l] OTRS summaries and statistics report, 2012
Greetings, The snapshot summary and numbers for statistics of emails sent to Volunteer Response Team for the year 2012 have been posted to Meta[1]. The Volunteer Response Team, also known as OTRS, processes email inquiries, requests, and comments about Wikimedia projects[2]. The data was derived from the OTRS statistics module by Cbrown1023. This is the first of further future documentation of traffic received to the general OTRS queues. In the report you will find data breakdowns for OTRS admin logged action, all info queues, breakdowns of info queues with subqueues, sister projects, and other maintenance details. Since the report contains a large number of datasets, I am not including the text here. If you need, I'll happily provide it by email. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Reports/2012 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS For the team, -- ~Keegan (OTRS Admin hat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2013 scholarship now accepting application
Hi all, Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong are being accept. The application window is one month (through 22 February). Wikimania 2013 scholarship is an award given to an individual to enable them to attend Wikimania in Hong Kong from 7-11 August, 2013. Both types of scholarships will be available this year. Partial scholarships will cover travel expenses to Wikimania, capped at 50% of the estimated air fare from your nearest international airport according to [[wm2013:Getting to Hong Kong]]. Full scholarships will cover round-trip travel, dorms accommodations as arranged by the Wikimania Team, and registration for Wikimania 2013. Applicants will be rated on the following four dimensions: 1. Activity within Wikimedia (on-wiki and off-wiki) - 50% 2. Activity outside of Wikimedia and other free knowledge/software projects - 15% 3. Interest in Wikimania and the Wikimedia movement - 25% 4. Fluency of English language - 10% To learn more about Wikimania 2013 scholarships, please visit https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships To apply for a scholarship, you can fill out the application form here: https://scholarship.wikimedia.hk If you have any question, email us at wikimania-shcolars...@wikimedia.org . Good luck! Simon Shek Community coordinator - Wikimania 2013 / Wikimedia Hong Kong wikimedia.hk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Legal and Community Advocacy Office Hours Tuesday 18:00 UTC
Hi all, It's been on the meta office hours page for a while but I'm not sure it's been announced here yet. Geoff Brigham (WMF General Counsel) and his team will be having an office hour Tuesday January 22nd (Tomorrow or today depending on your location) at 18:00 UTC/10:00 PST to answer questions about the work of the Legal and Community Advocacy Department. The office hours will take place on the Freenode IRC network in the #Wikimedia-office room. For more information including a webchat link and time conversion links go to the Meta office hour page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_Hours#How_to_participate James James Alexander Manager, Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
Steven Walling, 20/01/2013 23:34: Following up on this... The Editor Engagement Experiments team had the first one of these with Erik and Sue last Tuesday (the 15th). Tilman was there to take notes, and I published our slide deck, so there is a transcript and PDF to review for those interested at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editor_engagement_experiments Erik will likely share some notes soon on how he and Sue want to rejigger the meeting structure based on this first try. Overall it was helpful for all parties, but obviously in a meeting this long and covering this kind of material, adjustments can and should be made. Thanks, I think it's useful as a summary of the past activities (among other things). I asked a question on talk: maybe the answer is already in Erik's keyboard (Howie's summary partially answered me), or maybe not. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
Wikipedia's policies are meant to protect and further the goals of the project, and to offer what little safeguard they can against undue harm to good faith participants. People who try to undermine the project, or act in a way antithetical to its goals, or themselves attempt to cause harm to good faith participants should find no protection from its rules. That's how I'd look at it from an "inside Wikipedia" perspective. But the question is really one of personal ethics, and I think viewed that way the answer is clear. You have no obligation to these people to continue helping them maintain the secrecy and anonymity of their actions, which you (and most) find ethically suspect. They are trying to mislead the public for profit, using subversive methods, and they deserve at a minimum to have that made public. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
> A not really hypothetical question: > > Let say one is the director of marketing at a 16 billion dollar company > and > decides to come to Wikipedia in an attempt to alter its coverage of one > of > your companies key products (which has been hit fairly hard lately by the > evidence). One also invites 50 of your best friends (most of which are on > your pay role to join you in this effort). > > Let say you are trying to do it anonymously but both you and your > associates send out a whole bunch of intimidating emails to a long > standing > editor. Than this long standing editor without any real difficulty > figures > out who you are (as you sort of did email him). You than "vanish" from > Wikipedia. > > What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over > to > the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal > as > said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long > standing > editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if > this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community > apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian Our prohibitions against "outing" of the personal information of other editors refers to on-wiki accusations and guesses. You can use that information freely with respect to private communications with administrators or the arbitration committee regarding socking and conflict of interest issues. On-wiki communications regarding conflict of interest editing is OK but should omit such personal information. If Wikipedia processes are ineffective in dealing with the problem, publication off-wiki, particularly in a peer-reviewed journal, is acceptable in my view as assuming power over an issue and information concerning it implies a responsibility to deal with it adequately. However, I hope you will attempt to use our processes before you do something that may be damaging to our public image. Please give us a chance. For one thing, if there are grounds, our checkuser crew can often ferret out sock puppets and where they originate; you would have to promptly, probably before any legal controversy is ripe or before a court, obtain a court order to get that information on your own if editing was done using an account name. A note regarding evidence that you might need in defending a possible libel action: edits containing personal identifying information may be deleted or suppressed under our policies and can be retrieved later only under the terms of a court order, so, obviously, get them before they are hidden. Fred Bauder ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
On 21 January 2013 13:09, James Heilman wrote: > What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to > the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as > said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing > editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if > this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community > apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? The long-standing Internet practice is to publish threatening email as being in the public interest. Wikipedia isn't the platform for that. Given the indeterminate parameters of the original question, it would depend if the editor in question felt that this was sufficiently in the general public interest. The (not-so-) hypothetical editor in question could then reasonably leave it to other less-pissed-off editors to calmly sort out what should be done in terms of coverage on the wiki itself. This is of course all (not-so-) hypothetical. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
A not really hypothetical question: Let say one is the director of marketing at a 16 billion dollar company and decides to come to Wikipedia in an attempt to alter its coverage of one of your companies key products (which has been hit fairly hard lately by the evidence). One also invites 50 of your best friends (most of which are on your pay role to join you in this effort). Let say you are trying to do it anonymously but both you and your associates send out a whole bunch of intimidating emails to a long standing editor. Than this long standing editor without any real difficulty figures out who you are (as you sort of did email him). You than "vanish" from Wikipedia. What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 21 January 2013 01:23, Kim Bruning wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote: > >>> number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the > >> Well, Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia, >> so it had to be taken down. > > > Esperanza was killed because it became > problematic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza > > Perhaps bits of the idea may be useful, but it was a bad > implementation and is generally not missed. It's a bit late to try to ressurect something that never lived... I don't think there is a way back from admitting that WMF should stay out of running anything else than the servers, and fund (in a fit of honesty) every effort at making forking feasible... otherwise there is no hope for them... -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))
On 21 January 2013 01:23, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote: >> number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the > Well, Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia, > so it had to be taken down. Esperanza was killed because it became problematic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza Perhaps bits of the idea may be useful, but it was a bad implementation and is generally not missed. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
