Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

2014-04-04 Thread Yann Forget
Hi,

Sorry, sent too fast. ;o)

I think I need to explain the whole history of the issue.

1. On 22 February 2014, Alan started the Request for comment (RfC) on
whether we should host URAA-affected files, and restored previously
deleted ones (around 4,300 of them). [1]

2. On 28 February 2014, TeleComNasSprVen proposed a moratorium on
deletion of images under URAA.

3. On 18 March 2014, the initial proposal has received a huge support,
with some people opposing it, including some active admins. On that
date, I made a proposal for a compromise: only allowing a subset of
affected files. This has received only a few comments, and no
opposition. The discussion seems to be stalled around that date.

4. On 24 March 2014, I made a proposal for closuring the RfC as Yes.
This received 21 supports, and one opposition. None of the admins who
initially opposed the RfC cared to add any input. I mentioned that
closure will be done after one week.

5. On 2 April 2014, I close the RfC according to my proposal.

6. On 3 April 2014, Russavia unilaterally reverted my closure, and the
changes I made to the relevant policy pages, without any discussion.

Regards,

Yann

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA


2014-04-04 2:02 GMT+05:30 Robinson Tryon bishop.robin...@gmail.com:
 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
 community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
 majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
 and bold admins.
 Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
 ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.

 Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
 matter what. One admin even says that the

 The suspense is killing me: What does the admin say?

 --R

 ___
 Commons-l mailing list
 common...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
Proposal: Paid volunteers should take care to identify themselves on
Wikimedia Projects and discussions related to Wikimedia Projects.

Sue Gardner's initial report by the WMF into the Belfer case makes  a key
decision that there must be effective processes for escalation of employee
activities that may not comply with Wikimedia local project best
practice.[1][2] The WMF can direct their own processes for their staff, but
a consequence for the wider community is that on our projects we should
have policies that ensure there is simple and straight-forward transparency
for who is a paid volunteer and may have interests related to their edits
or their contributions to discussion. The current situation is that paid
volunteers have no requirement to identify themselves and may contribute
anonymously or pseudonymously in ways that obscure their interest, in fact
this is current common practice.

I am thinking of raising this proposal on meta, so initial thoughts and
comments on this list would be welcome to decide whether this is worth
taking forward as beneficial to our volunteer community.

*Definition of paid volunteer:*
Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
partnerships with Wikimedia. The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia
projects and discussions that influence the content of Wikimedia projects.
This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for their
on-project activities, however their employer benefits from the content of
the same projects.

Links:
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070827.html
[2]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread Philippe Beaudette
Perhaps I'm just being obtuse, but I'm a little unclear on the definition
of a paid volunteer.  Could you possibly try rephrasing it so that I'm more
clear?

pb



*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Proposal: Paid volunteers should take care to identify themselves on
 Wikimedia Projects and discussions related to Wikimedia Projects.

 Sue Gardner's initial report by the WMF into the Belfer case makes  a key
 decision that there must be effective processes for escalation of employee
 activities that may not comply with Wikimedia local project best
 practice.[1][2] The WMF can direct their own processes for their staff, but
 a consequence for the wider community is that on our projects we should
 have policies that ensure there is simple and straight-forward transparency
 for who is a paid volunteer and may have interests related to their edits
 or their contributions to discussion. The current situation is that paid
 volunteers have no requirement to identify themselves and may contribute
 anonymously or pseudonymously in ways that obscure their interest, in fact
 this is current common practice.

 I am thinking of raising this proposal on meta, so initial thoughts and
 comments on this list would be welcome to decide whether this is worth
 taking forward as beneficial to our volunteer community.

 *Definition of paid volunteer:*
 Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
 Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
 partnerships with Wikimedia. The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia
 projects and discussions that influence the content of Wikimedia projects.
 This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for their
 on-project activities, however their employer benefits from the content of
 the same projects.

 Links:
 [1]
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070827.html
 [2]

 https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread Richard Symonds
A bit of unsolicited advice from a chapter staff member and long-time
volunteer coming up. It doesn't represent my view on this proposal, but is,
as I said, simply unsolicited advice! Feel free to ignore it if you want.

Here we go...

It seems to me that the term 'paid volunteer' is an oxymoron. A volunteer
is, by 
definitionhttp://www.volunteering.org.uk/iwanttovolunteer/what-is-volunteering,
unpaid, aren't they?

That said, this definition, *as applied to paid editing,* is a good start,
but it seems like it needs a little reworking to cover what you're trying
to cover, in particular the part that reads This includes employees and
contractors I'll explain why this is my advice below:

   - Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time
contractors of Wikimedia
   organizations or other organizations having agreements or partnerships
   with Wikimedia.
  - *[This could include, say, Google, who have probably signed a
  Wikimania sponsorship agreement with the WMF at some point]*
   - The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia projects and discussions
   that influence the content of Wikimedia projects.
   - *[This would include any Google employee who edits Wikipedia in his
  spare time]*
   - This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for
their on-project
   activities,
  - *[This would also include a Google employee who edits in his spare
  time about trains as his hobby]*
   - however their employer benefits from the content of the same projects.
   - *[Which Google does because they trawl Wikimedia projects and thus
  benefit from them... but then, most of the Western World benefits from
  Wikipedia one way or another!]*

This would mean that anyone who works for Google, and edits Wikipedia about
1920s Welsh steam trains, is a paid volunteer, regardless of whether their
job has anything to do with Wikipedia. As a paid volunteer, presumably
their would be extra rules which apply to him - but rules which would not
serve any purpose in his case except for preventing some sort of
Google/Wikipedia/Welsh Steam Trains tryst that wouldn't realistically occur
anyway.

What I'm saying is that this would potentially cover an *awful* lot of
people. To give another example, what if the US State department granted an
amount to the Wikimedia Idaho chapter to do an editathon (with a short
one-page grant agreement covering what the £250 grant would be used for)?
Would that then mean that any US State Department employee, worldwide,
would be a 'paid volunteer'? By this definition, yes...

Don't get me wrong, this is a discussion that the community needs to have,
but the stated definition, in my opinion, may be overreaching a bit more
than intended...

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 4 April 2014 12:26, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Perhaps I'm just being obtuse, but I'm a little unclear on the definition
 of a paid volunteer.  Could you possibly try rephrasing it so that I'm more
 clear?

 pb



 *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
 Foundation, Inc.
  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
 @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki


 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

  Proposal: Paid volunteers should take care to identify themselves on
  Wikimedia Projects and discussions related to Wikimedia Projects.
 
  Sue Gardner's initial report by the WMF into the Belfer case makes  a key
  decision that there must be effective processes for escalation of
 employee
  activities that may not comply with Wikimedia local project best
  practice.[1][2] The WMF can direct their own processes for their staff,
 but
  a consequence for the wider community is that on our projects we should
  have policies that ensure there is simple and straight-forward
 transparency
  for who is a paid volunteer and may have interests related to their edits
  or their contributions to discussion. The current situation is that paid
  volunteers have no requirement to identify themselves and may contribute
  anonymously or pseudonymously in ways that obscure their interest, in
 fact
  this is current common practice.
 
  I am thinking of raising this proposal on meta, so initial thoughts and
  comments on this list would be welcome to decide whether this is worth
  taking forward as beneficial to our volunteer community.
 
  *Definition of paid 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread Gryllida
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, at 22:14, Fæ wrote:
 *Definition of paid volunteer:*
 Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
 Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
 partnerships with Wikimedia. The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia
 projects and discussions that influence the content of Wikimedia projects.
 This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for their
 on-project activities, however their employer benefits from the content of
 the same projects.

Dear Fae,

If I am a student and write wikipedia articles about commercial software my 
university uses in my free time, I satisfy this definition. However, I would 
have no conflict of interest here, as neither I nor my university gets paid for 
the new information I would write.

I think that in such situation, I can silently do my things within interest of 
satisfying Wikimedia mission of free knowledge. You should not require anything 
of me. I would like you to re-think your definitions here.

Related: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment/Archives/2014-03-07#What_to_ask_to_disclose:_paid_contributions_or_COI.3F

Gryllida.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I can understand the sentiment and, it makes some sense. However, I do not
like weasel words ... paid employees.. Bah

They are not volunteering. They are on a job, have a mission. I think that
employees of any organisations may work for the benefit of bringing the sum
of all knowledge together together .. How this is done differs. How this is
accepted differs.

I for one am bemused with all the hoopla, then again nowadays I do Wikidata
first, am a Wikimedian second and yes I love Wikipedia as well. For me when
a company, organisation can help us with a significant amount of quality
data, I am happy when it gets added to Wikidata. At that we are more
libre than Wikipedia, to comply with Wikidata requirements a license of
CC-0 has to be provided.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 4 April 2014 13:14, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Proposal: Paid volunteers should take care to identify themselves on
 Wikimedia Projects and discussions related to Wikimedia Projects.

 Sue Gardner's initial report by the WMF into the Belfer case makes  a key
 decision that there must be effective processes for escalation of employee
 activities that may not comply with Wikimedia local project best
 practice.[1][2] The WMF can direct their own processes for their staff, but
 a consequence for the wider community is that on our projects we should
 have policies that ensure there is simple and straight-forward transparency
 for who is a paid volunteer and may have interests related to their edits
 or their contributions to discussion. The current situation is that paid
 volunteers have no requirement to identify themselves and may contribute
 anonymously or pseudonymously in ways that obscure their interest, in fact
 this is current common practice.

 I am thinking of raising this proposal on meta, so initial thoughts and
 comments on this list would be welcome to decide whether this is worth
 taking forward as beneficial to our volunteer community.

 *Definition of paid volunteer:*
 Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
 Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
 partnerships with Wikimedia. The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia
 projects and discussions that influence the content of Wikimedia projects.
 This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for their
 on-project activities, however their employer benefits from the content of
 the same projects.

 Links:
 [1]
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070827.html
 [2]

 https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
On 4 April 2014 14:05, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
 It seems to me that the term 'paid volunteer' is an oxymoron.
...

Yes, it is oxymoronic, many common terms are, though I am open to an
alternative form of words. I understand that volunteers who are also
employees do not want to be required to always declare they are an
employee, it can be the equivalent of wearing a kick me sign, but
this is a community issue to solve, not an excuse for being opaque.
Sue's report into the Belfer case is leading us in this direction if
we want to avoid the same embarrassments occurring not just in the WMF
but in partnerships or chapter/thorg funded projects.

We need to cover the following real and current situations where there
is a lack of transparency (here employee includes contractors and
Wikimedia organizations includes the WMF, chapters, thorgs,
proto-chapter programmes, etc.):

(A) There are increasing numbers of Wikimedia self-identified
volunteers receiving expenses, scholarships, grants or supplied
equipment as part of projects funded or part-funded by Wikimedia
organizations. The most notable are Wikimedian in Residence projects,
however a variety of other projects exist with money or other
benefits, such as me being supplied a computer to support some
worthwhile Commons mass upload projects. There is currently no
consistent global requirement or procedure for volunteers to do any
more than declare their interest, which may remain on a special
sub-page of one of the Wikimedia projects, chapter wikis, or even
privately declared. There are plenty examples of 'paid volunteers' or
'supported volunteers' in this situation, who are advocating for
community support for their projects without it being clear or
transparent at the time of that advocacy that they are being supported
with funding, equipment or contracted payments. There is *absolutely*
nothing wrong with content creation advocacy, it is fulfilling the aim
of our projects, however if an interest is not transparent and not
easy to understand, it is not best practice.

(B) Significant numbers of Wikimedia/chapter employees are taking part
in community project discussions and !votes using pseudonymous
accounts. The resulting summary of community consensus does not take
account of the numbers of volunteers who are also employees
contributing, even when a !vote has direct implications for the
priority or future funding of projects that some of the same employees
may benefit from or their employer will benefit from.

(C) Full time Wikimedia organization employees are paid Wikimedia
volunteer scholarships to go to Wikimedia conferences where they may
attend without making it clear they are an employee as they are
attending as a volunteer. During the conference they are advocating
future projects and community policy changes that will benefit their
employer and may create future funded programmes for their employer
and potentially themselves as an employee.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Language Engineering IRC Office Hour on April 09, 2014 (Wednesday) at 1700 UTC

2014-04-04 Thread Runa Bhattacharjee
[x-posted]

Hello,

The Language Engineering team will be hosting the next monthly IRC office
hour on Wednesday, April 9 2014 at 1700 UTC at #wikimedia-office.

We will be discussing about our recent work and provide updates related to
changes in the translation file format (PHP to JSON) for MediaWiki core and
extensions. As always, we will be taking questions during the session.

Please see below for event details and local time. See you at the office
hour.

Thanks
Runa

Monthly IRC Office Hour:
==
# Date: April 9, 2014

# Time: 1700 UTC/1000PDT (Check local time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140409T1700)

# IRC channel: #wikimedia-office

# Agenda:
1. Translation file format changes
2. Other project updates
3. Q  A (Questions can be sent to me ahead of the event)

-- 
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
On 4 April 2014 14:33, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
 On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, at 22:14, Fæ wrote:
 *Definition of paid volunteer:*
 Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
 Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
 partnerships with Wikimedia. The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia
 projects and discussions that influence the content of Wikimedia projects.
 This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for their
 on-project activities, however their employer benefits from the content of
 the same projects.
...
 If I am a student and write wikipedia articles about commercial software my 
 university uses in my free time, I satisfy this definition. However, I would 
 have no conflict of interest here, as neither I nor my university gets paid 
 for the new information I would write.
...

I do not understand how you are reading the definition to believe it
would apply to students writing about some software they happen to
use. Students pay the university to be on a course, or receive a grant
from a funding body which they then pay the university, not the
reverse. To be clear, this definition does not apply to students, they
are not:
* employees who are also volunteers
* volunteers who are receiving money or given significant assets for
improving content of Wikimedia projects

Even a paid researcher on a university project would not meet this
definition, unless the project were part funded or in partnership with
Wikimedia. In that latter case, yes, we would want their interest to
be declared when they were acting as a volunteer contributor to
Wikimedia projects and at the same time benefiting their university
project or advocating for further projects where they were likely to
be employed/contracted or be credited for associated academic
publications.

What is proposed here is *not* a general conflict of interest policy,
it is a specific policy of transparency directed at Wikimedia
organization employees or employees of Wikimedia partners on
programmes directly related to Wikimedia projects in the same way as
can be claimed for the Belfer case. Vague associations like an
employee of a Wikimedia partner organization who has no connection to
a Wikimedia partnership are tangential ideas, having nothing to do
with this proposal.

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread Richard Symonds
Just a quick correction, you say that Even a paid researcher on a
university project would not meet this definition, unless the project were
part funded or in partnership with Wikimedia. 

This is not quite accurate: even a student on a university project would
meet this definition if his university had:

   1. Signed a quick
licencehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark/License/GLAM (an
   agreement between the University and the WMF)
   2. Paid for the student's scholarship (a contracted payment from the
   University to the student)

This would apply under the current definition *even if* *the student's
studies are entirely unrelated to Wikimedia.* This is because the student
would be a contractor of an organizations having [an agreement] with
Wikimedia.

It could easily be read that a 'paid volunteer':

   - Has to be an employee, contractor or part time contractor of [anyone
   who has signed any agreement with any Wikimedia organisation or person
   describing themselves as part of Wikimedia].
   - Has to [contribute to Wikimedia, but not necessarily edit].
   - This includes [anyone whose employer benefits from Wikimedia in any
   way].

I know that this seems hysterical, but experience has shown that we need to
define these things accurately, and the definition is much too broad at
present. It has the effect of including all employees and contractors (even
unpaid) of all organisations which have ever so much as signed a single
page agreement with anyone from Wikimedia. We have to ask:

   1. How are we defining Wikimedia? Does it include, say, user groups?
   Could it include single persons in some cases?
   2. Why are we including people who are not actually paid to edit the
   projects, but might be paid to, for example, mine coal - but edit the
   projects when they get home?
   3. Does this include organisations where there is an unwritten
   agreement? What about a draft agreement?

A complex issue!


Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 4 April 2014 16:49, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 April 2014 14:33, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
  On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, at 22:14, Fæ wrote:
  *Definition of paid volunteer:*
  Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
  Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
  partnerships with Wikimedia. The paid volunteer contributes to Wikimedia
  projects and discussions that influence the content of Wikimedia
 projects.
  This includes employees and contractors that may not be paid for their
  on-project activities, however their employer benefits from the content
 of
  the same projects.
 ...
  If I am a student and write wikipedia articles about commercial software
 my university uses in my free time, I satisfy this definition. However, I
 would have no conflict of interest here, as neither I nor my university
 gets paid for the new information I would write.
 ...

 I do not understand how you are reading the definition to believe it
 would apply to students writing about some software they happen to
 use. Students pay the university to be on a course, or receive a grant
 from a funding body which they then pay the university, not the
 reverse. To be clear, this definition does not apply to students, they
 are not:
 * employees who are also volunteers
 * volunteers who are receiving money or given significant assets for
 improving content of Wikimedia projects

 Even a paid researcher on a university project would not meet this
 definition, unless the project were part funded or in partnership with
 Wikimedia. In that latter case, yes, we would want their interest to
 be declared when they were acting as a volunteer contributor to
 Wikimedia projects and at the same time benefiting their university
 project or advocating for further projects where they were likely to
 be employed/contracted or be credited for associated academic
 publications.

 What is proposed here is *not* a general conflict of interest policy,
 it is a specific policy of transparency directed at Wikimedia
 organization employees or employees of Wikimedia partners on
 programmes directly related to Wikimedia projects in the same way as
 can be claimed for the Belfer case. Vague associations like an
 employee of a Wikimedia partner organization who has no connection to
 a Wikimedia partnership are tangential ideas, having nothing to do
 with this proposal.

 Fae

 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
On 04/04/2014, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
 Just a quick correction, you say that Even a paid researcher on a
 university project would not meet this definition, unless the project were
 part funded or in partnership with Wikimedia. 

 This is not quite accurate: even a student on a university project would
 meet this definition if his university had:

1. Signed a quick
 licencehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark/License/GLAM (an
agreement between the University and the WMF)

I cannot imaging a project needing such agreements in place if it were
not relevant. If the agreements applied to the specific activities of
a student, then they are being funded to take part on a Wikimedia
related project. I can think of no other reasons as to why the student
would be using Wikimedia trademarks.

2. Paid for the student's scholarship (a contracted payment from the
University to the student)

An unrestricted university scholarship unconnected to any Wikimedia
project outcomes is not being part funded by Wikimedia. I cannot
imagine any circumstances where this would be relevant. If the student
were taking part in Wikimedia projects, the normal COI policy applies
when writing about their department, research or institution.

 This would apply under the current definition *even if* *the student's
 studies are entirely unrelated to Wikimedia.* This is because the student
 would be a contractor of an organizations having [an agreement] with
 Wikimedia.

No, for the reasons above. This is trying to drive a wedge into basic
partnership agreements with universities which would have nothing
whatsoever to do with students receiving scholarships. It is well
outside of any common-sense interpretation. As I read it, this is
covered in the definition, however if you have a specific proposal to
simplify the definition I would welcome it.

 It could easily be read that a 'paid volunteer':

- Has to be an employee, contractor or part time contractor of [anyone
who has signed any agreement with any Wikimedia organisation or person
describing themselves as part of Wikimedia].
- Has to [contribute to Wikimedia, but not necessarily edit].
- This includes [anyone whose employer benefits from Wikimedia in any
way].

 I know that this seems hysterical, but experience has shown that we need to
 define these things accurately, and the definition is much too broad at
 present. It has the effect of including all employees and contractors (even
 unpaid) of all organisations which have ever so much as signed a single
 page agreement with anyone from Wikimedia. We have to ask:

1. How are we defining Wikimedia? Does it include, say, user groups?
Could it include single persons in some cases?

Yes, if a user group agreement is in place.

2. Why are we including people who are not actually paid to edit the
projects, but might be paid to, for example, mine coal - but edit the
projects when they get home?

I do not understand this example. The WMF does not employ coal miners.

If you mean someone like Garfield (CFO of the WMF) as he is not paid
to edit projects, or to develop the software that supports the
projects, then yes, I would expect Garfield to be transparent. For
example if he were anonymously !voting in a community discussion about
the future of Wikimedia Commons, then he should make it clear that he
is employed by the WMF.

3. Does this include organisations where there is an unwritten
agreement? What about a draft agreement?

No. I would expect the norms for conflict of interest to apply rather
than this procedure.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread Yann Forget
Hi,

In 2007, there was some significant conflict on the French Wkipedia,
when people working for the nuclear industry edited related articles,
and denied anyone without a PhD on nuclear physics any autority about
this subject. Further more they refused any reference from outside the
nuclear industry, specially from NGOs critical about this (i.e.
Greenpeace). The result was that some articles on this subject were
pure propaganda. Any mentions about incidents or accidents were
systematically removed or reworded to conform to the view of this
industry. These people are not paid to edit Wikipedia, so they denied
having a conflict of interest. I haven't checked if the situation has
changed since that time.

I would like that a situation like this being taken into account, but
it may be outside the scope of your request.

Regards,

Yann

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
Yann, the nuclear industry controversy was more the issue of
control/ownership of content (which can happen on Commons, for example
the news today about attempts to restrict reuse of Barack Obama's
image). It is a tangent to this proposal. If you have other examples
and think current project policies are insufficient, this might be
worth a separate thread.

More comments welcome, but from the struggle over the meaning of
words, I think doing this on-wiki will be helpful as it would separate
the discussion from the proposal, which itself could be gradually
refined. Much harder to cooperate on a proposal by email. :-)

Fae

On 4 April 2014 18:42, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 In 2007, there was some significant conflict on the French Wkipedia,
 when people working for the nuclear industry edited related articles,
 and denied anyone without a PhD on nuclear physics any autority about
 this subject. Further more they refused any reference from outside the
 nuclear industry, specially from NGOs critical about this (i.e.
 Greenpeace). The result was that some articles on this subject were
 pure propaganda. Any mentions about incidents or accidents were
 systematically removed or reworded to conform to the view of this
 industry. These people are not paid to edit Wikipedia, so they denied
 having a conflict of interest. I haven't checked if the situation has
 changed since that time.

 I would like that a situation like this being taken into account, but
 it may be outside the scope of your request.

 Regards,

 Yann

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-04-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Monday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Analytics team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Analytics/March_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We'll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We're slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-04 Thread James Salsman
Hi Geoff,

Your link to
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
me what it used to be for some reason.

Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
political advocacy by nonprofits?

Also, do you think it would be a good idea to make an annotated version for
those of us wondering what is and is not allowed when recommending advocacy
actions in support of volunteer quality of life to Foundation officials?
Thank you.

Best regards,
James Salsman

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AAPG%2FFunds_Dissemination_Committee%2FFramework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCdiff=3815742oldid=3815636#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel

[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Political_advocacy:_We_ensure_our_views_are_known_to_politicians_who_threaten_our_values
.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-04 Thread Pete Forsyth
James, do we need to take Geoff's time up with something so thoroughly
documented elsewhere? I'd suggest starting with this web site:
http://www.clpi.org/

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Geoff,

 Your link to
 http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
 in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
 me what it used to be for some reason.

 Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
 political advocacy by nonprofits?

 Also, do you think it would be a good idea to make an annotated version for
 those of us wondering what is and is not allowed when recommending advocacy
 actions in support of volunteer quality of life to Foundation officials?
 Thank you.

 Best regards,
 James Salsman

 [1]

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AAPG%2FFunds_Dissemination_Committee%2FFramework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCdiff=3815742oldid=3815636#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel

 [2]

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Political_advocacy:_We_ensure_our_views_are_known_to_politicians_who_threaten_our_values
 .
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-04 Thread Tilman Bayer
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Geoff,

 Your link to
 http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
 in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
 me what it used to be for some reason.
Just on a technical note, I can access this URL without problem, which
should be the IA's capture closest to the time when Geoff linked to
the page in his talk page comment (7 June 2012):
https://web.archive.org/web/20120618214851/http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html


 Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
 political advocacy by nonprofits?

 Also, do you think it would be a good idea to make an annotated version for
 those of us wondering what is and is not allowed when recommending advocacy
 actions in support of volunteer quality of life to Foundation officials?
 Thank you.

 Best regards,
 James Salsman

 [1]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AAPG%2FFunds_Dissemination_Committee%2FFramework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCdiff=3815742oldid=3815636#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel

 [2]
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Political_advocacy:_We_ensure_our_views_are_known_to_politicians_who_threaten_our_values
 .
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-04 Thread James Salsman
Thanks, Tillman, I still get the error below and a timeout from archive.org,
so a Wikimedia annotated copy would really help.

I am specifically interested in which items in
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-March/000420.html
are precluded.

 We have redesigned the IRS.gov website to make it easier and faster to
find the information you need. If you have reached this page by selecting a
bookmark that worked previously, it is likely the URL has changed. To
navigate to the new redesigned IRS website click on the homepage link. You
may also Search http://www.irs.gov/Help--Resources/Search-Tips the site
for specific information. Once you have arrived at the desired page, please
update your bookmark.

IRS.gov http://www.irs.gov/ Home Page http://www.irs.gov/

*If this problem persists, please contact the
**IRS.gov*irs.gov.website.helpd...@speedymail.com*
Help Desk.* irs.gov.website.helpd...@speedymail.com 
On Apr 5, 2014 6:17 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Geoff,

 Your link to
 http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
 in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't
 show me what it used to be for some reason.

 Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
 political advocacy by nonprofits?

 Also, do you think it would be a good idea to make an annotated version
 for those of us wondering what is and is not allowed when recommending
 advocacy actions in support of volunteer quality of life to Foundation
 officials? Thank you.

 Best regards,
 James Salsman

 [1]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AAPG%2FFunds_Dissemination_Committee%2FFramework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCdiff=3815742oldid=3815636#Some_notes_and_remarks_from_Pavel

 [2]
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Political_advocacy:_We_ensure_our_views_are_known_to_politicians_who_threaten_our_values
 .

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe