Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Italia has a new board

2014-04-07 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi

Congratulations and thank you to all those involved for volunteering their time!

Jan-Bart


On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:25, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,
 
 yesterday April 6th, 2014, in Florence at The Impact Hub Wikimedia
 Italia held his general assembly which comprised the vote on the final
 budget for 2013 and the budget for 2014 the election of 3 new board
 members[*].
 
 The new board is:
 * Andrea Zanni, President
 * Simone Cortesi, Vice-president (newly elected)
 * Luca Martinelli, Secretary (newly elected)
 * Cristian Consonni, Treasurer
 * Ginevra Sanvitale, Director of Programmes (newly elected)
 
 Please join me in applauding the new members and wishing them good luck :-)
 
 We would also like to thank Alessio Guidetti, Lorenzo Losa, Francesco
 Tarantini and Frieda Brioschi for their service in the board.
 
 Cristian Consonni
 
 [*] Wikimedia Italia adopted since last year to have two-year long
 board mandates with staggered deadlines so we will be electing either
 2 or 3 board members each year.
 
 ___
 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

[Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski
This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly 
shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...) 
about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as 
expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between 
March 1-2 in London.


The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, 
Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do 
that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, 
who cares.


I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given 
that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me 
just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is 
absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately.


Read more at:
* 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
* 
http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/


Tomasz

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Fred Bauder
Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support
just becomes a box to check.

Fred

 This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
 shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
 about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
 expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
 March 1-2 in London.

 The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
 Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should
 do
 that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community,
 who cares.

 I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
 that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
 just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
 absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
 immediately.

 Read more at:
 *
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
 *
 http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/

  Tomasz

 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,
I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...
Kind regards
Ziko



Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder :

 Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
 they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support
 just becomes a box to check.

 Fred

  This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
  shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
  about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
  expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
  March 1-2 in London.
 
  The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
  Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should
  do
  that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community,
  who cares.
 
  I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
  that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
  just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
  absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
  immediately.
 
  Read more at:
  *
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
 
  *
  
 http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/
 
 
   Tomasz
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 ?subject=unsubscribe



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



-- 


Dr. Ziko van Dijk

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
http://wikimedia.nl

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Keating
As one of the organisers of the workshop, I feel I ought to chime in here.

If I remember correctly, those remarks were made as a passing comment in a
very emotional session about the role of movement organisations. I don't
believe anyone present took them to heart.

Indeed, the vast majority of people at the workshop were Wikimedians who'd
recently been elected to Chapter boards, who have strong roots in the
community and are starting to get to grips with how to run an organisation!

I'd certainly suggest people read Steffen's blog post (even if through
google translate) or indeed the minutes of the workshop, for a bit more
context;

http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Minutes

Regards,

Chris



On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:

 This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
 shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
 about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
 expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March
 1-2 in London.

 The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
 Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do
 that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who
 cares.

 I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
 that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just
 say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely
 unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately.

 Read more at:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_
 Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
 * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-
 ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/

 Tomasz

 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Johan Jönsson
2014-04-07 11:46 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl:

 Hello,
 I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...


Hear, hear.

The senitment would be extremely problematic if widespread, of course. But
we don't need a great debate based on one (out-of-context) quote from one
anonymous person.

//Johan Jönsson
--
http://wikipediabloggen.se
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Ziko van Dijk wrote


I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...


Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a 
public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes 
on Meta).


That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact 
that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; 
I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that 
person is.


I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a 
comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; 
however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some 
chapters and their respective communities.


Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better 
what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, 
I'm not sure.


Tomasz

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread David Gerard
On 7 April 2014 11:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

 I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment
 could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it
 would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their
 respective communities.


That translates to OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway.


- d.

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

David Gerard wrote:


That translates to OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway.


Which of the words from the sentence I wrote require translation for 
you? The idea that there are divisions between chapters and communities 
is not a new one; I personally have seen people mention it in various 
places many, many times.


If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would 
fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.


Tomasz

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
 If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit
 quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
 Tomasz

Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
publicly and explain what they meant?

If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
who made views like this, while representing our community of
volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
themselves in their own words.

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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Steffen Prößdorf
Hi Folks,

please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
not harp on this single quote.

Thanks,
Steffen


2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:

  If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit
  quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
  Tomasz

 Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
 publicly and explain what they meant?

 If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
 who made views like this, while representing our community of
 volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
 appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
 demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
 they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
 themselves in their own words.

 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




-- 
Steffen Prößdorf
Treasurer, member of the board
Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge
http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
in everyone's benefit??
Thanks,
 Gerard


On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

 Ziko van Dijk wrote


  I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...


 Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
 public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on
 Meta).

 That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
 that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
 sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is.

 I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
 comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
 however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
 chapters and their respective communities.

 Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
 best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure.


 Tomasz

 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
take this story on tangents.

Fae

On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de wrote:
 Hi Folks,

 please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
 I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
 conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
 opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
 not harp on this single quote.

 Thanks,
 Steffen


 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:

  If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit
  quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
  Tomasz

 Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
 publicly and explain what they meant?

 If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
 who made views like this, while representing our community of
 volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
 appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
 demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
 they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
 themselves in their own words.

 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
I don't believe Tomasz said anything about hanging them and hanging them
high.

But if there are movementarians who hold this point of view, they should be
able to speak up publicly and present that point of view.

I, for one, don't disagree with paid editing, so long as it is inline with
expected community standards.

Having such a person within the chapters who does hold such views is a
great thing (perhaps not the fuck the community part though), and they
should be encouraged to come forward and make their views known.

Whether they are prepared for the tarring and feathering they will receive
at the hands of dedicated movementarians is another matter entirely.
Obviously it is an issue for some, otherwise Steffen wouldn't have blabbed
about it to The Signpost. But no-one wants a repeat of the disgraceful
public hanging that Fae suffered at their hands.

Cheers,

Russavia


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hoi,
 What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

 You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

 What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
 in everyone's benefit??
 Thanks,
  Gerard


 On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

  Ziko van Dijk wrote
 
 
   I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
  public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
  criticism...
 
 
  Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
  public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes
 on
  Meta).
 
  That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
  that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
  sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person
 is.
 
  I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
  comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
  however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
  chapters and their respective communities.
 
  Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
  best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
 sure.
 
 
  Tomasz
 
  ___
  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

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Keating
I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
basis.

This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
out-of-context quotes.

Chris
On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
  I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
  conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
  opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
  not harp on this single quote.
 
  Thanks,
  Steffen
 
 
  2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 
   If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
   quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
   Tomasz
 
  Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
  publicly and explain what they meant?
 
  If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
  who made views like this, while representing our community of
  volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
  appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
  demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
  they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
  themselves in their own words.
 
  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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Craig Franklin
I agree with Ziko's point entirely here.  The two people who have taken
part in this discussion so far who were present at the time have not given
anything to indicate it was more than a flippant remark made in a stressful
situation.  Not that I agree with the sentiment of course, but I'm glad
that at this meeting a wide variety of views were obviously put forward and
robustly discussed.

I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to
be so anodyne, colourless, and always on message that the occasional
spirited remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?  Certainly, I would
understand why the person that make the remark might decline to come
forward given the relentless hounding that will inevitably occur.  It seems
to me that what is being asked for by some is more than can be reasonably
expected from a human being.  Personally, speaking as a Wikimedia donor and
a member of the community, I prefer to be lead by fallible human beings
rather than robots.

Cheers,
Craig


On 7 April 2014 19:46, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:

 Hello,
 I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...
 Kind regards
 Ziko



 Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder :

  Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
  they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support
  just becomes a box to check.
 
  Fred
 
   This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
   shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
   about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
   expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
   March 1-2 in London.
  
   The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
   Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should
   do
   that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community,
   who cares.
  
   I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
   that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
   just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
   absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
   immediately.
  
   Read more at:
   *
   
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
  
   *
   
 
 http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/
  
  
Tomasz
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  ?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  ?subject=unsubscribe



 --


 
 Dr. Ziko van Dijk

 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 http://wikimedia.nl

 
 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
immediately.

Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
fuck the community?

I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
their board.

Links:
1. 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
Fae

On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.

 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.

 Chris
 On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
  I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
  conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
  opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
  not harp on this single quote.
 
  Thanks,
  Steffen
 
 
  2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 
   If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
   quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
   Tomasz
 
  Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
  publicly and explain what they meant?
 
  If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
  who made views like this, while representing our community of
  volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
  appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
  demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
  they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
  themselves in their own words.
 
  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



-- 
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Chris Keating wrote:


This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
out-of-context quotes.


I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public 
mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you 
to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort 
to personal attacks.


If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.

What a shameful comment, Chris.

Tomasz

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Christophe Henner
Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite
of the original meaning.

The discussion was about what are the goals of the Wikimedia
Organizations?. Why do they exist?

If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in
free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to
care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and
make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps
that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make
organizations think a little more about the communities instead of
sheer free knowledge production.

In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take
some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to
speak a lot :() you could say that I said let's disband all Wikimedia
Organizations.

Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the
case here, to change it's true meaning.

No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our
community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we
are all part of that community.

Best,
--
Christophe


On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 Chris Keating wrote:

 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.


 I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing
 list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to
 elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal
 attacks.

 If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.

 What a shameful comment, Chris.

 Tomasz


 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:

 Chris Keating wrote:

  This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.


 I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public
 mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to
 adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to
 personal attacks.

 If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.


I call no real Scotsman.

--Martijn Hoekstra


 What a shameful comment, Chris.

 Tomasz


 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi All,

I was not present at this meeting, but gather that it was a weekend that was 
valued by all that attended. As Chris has already indicated, he does not agree 
with the remark and I think that all of us disagree with the remar (and that is 
discounting the fact that the whole statement is taken out of context which 
makes a big difference)

But in the middle of a heated discussion, things get said. Chris has indicated 
that one of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions 
were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. And I agree that I 
would be terrible to break this confidentiality as this would severely limit 
the effectiveness of future sessions within the movement because feel people 
that they cannot be frank. As a movement we have a tremendous challenge ahead 
of us in the coming years, and we need open interaction amongst the different 
entities in order to make progress on these goals. Are we really interested in 
a movement where all volunteer board members are constantly being politically 
correct and cannot misspeak (whereas other community members can?). I for one 
would enjoy an open environment rather than a punishing one which closely 
resembles some of the political environments we read so much about.

Can we assume that the feedback has already reached the person in question (and 
the person probably got more than enough feedback during and after the 
session). Does it really benefit us as a movement to force this person to 
resign or be publicly shamed? 

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees

PS: whenever Christophe speaks I would be likely to cheer, only to realise 
minutes later… “What the #(*$ did I just agree with?” ;)



On 07 Apr 2014, at 13:54, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite
 of the original meaning.
 
 The discussion was about what are the goals of the Wikimedia
 Organizations?. Why do they exist?
 
 If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in
 free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to
 care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and
 make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps
 that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make
 organizations think a little more about the communities instead of
 sheer free knowledge production.
 
 In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take
 some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to
 speak a lot :() you could say that I said let's disband all Wikimedia
 Organizations.
 
 Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the
 case here, to change it's true meaning.
 
 No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our
 community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we
 are all part of that community.
 
 Best,
 --
 Christophe
 
 
 On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 Chris Keating wrote:
 
 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.
 
 
 I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing
 list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to
 elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal
 attacks.
 
 If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.
 
 What a shameful comment, Chris.
 
Tomasz
 
 
 ___
 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


___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
Chris

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.


Sounds to me like the Wikimedian version of the Bilderberg Group. Except
Bilderberg don't generally take photos of those present.[1] Is there a list
of participants available at this workshop? Or is everyone who was present
available to see in this photo?

But seriously, Chris, who set these ground-rules? Do you think that having
Bilderberg-like secrecy in the movement is a good thing?

Cheers

Russavia


[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boards_workshop_2014_group_photo.jpg
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Michael Maggs
I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public 
investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on.  I am also saddened 
by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they 
do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated 
shorn of all context.

One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch 
hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the 
community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare 
than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we 
all agree on, surely?).  

I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if 
anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a 
trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. 
 

Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be 
anathema to us?  No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely 
self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not 
make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.

Michael



On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
 people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
 request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
 absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
 immediately.
 
 Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
 or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
 responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
 fuck the community?
 
 I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
 and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
 can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
 their board.
 
 Links:
 1. 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
 Fae
 
 On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.
 
 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.
 
 Chris
 On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.
 
 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.
 
 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.
 
 Fae
 
 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
 Hi Folks,
 
 please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
 I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
 conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
 opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
 not harp on this single quote.
 
 Thanks,
 Steffen
 
 
 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 
 If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
 quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
Tomasz
 
 Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
 publicly and explain what they meant?
 
 If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
 who made views like this, while representing our community of
 volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
 appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
 demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
 they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
 themselves in their own words.
 
 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
Michael,

Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work
with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have
signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This
makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public
statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with
public minutes) they would be required to resign their position.
Making public personal attacks against community members I would say
could easily be a resigning matter too.

Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally
created body of bureaucracy.

I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread.

Fae

On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:
 I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public 
 investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on.  I am also 
 saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly 
 whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third 
 party, but restated shorn of all context.

 One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch 
 hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the 
 community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine 
 warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission 
 (which we all agree on, surely?).

 I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, 
 if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of 
 a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a 
 “philosophy”.

 Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be 
 anathema to us?  No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely 
 self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not 
 make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.

 Michael



 On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
 people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
 request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
 absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
 immediately.

 Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
 or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
 responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
 fuck the community?

 I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
 and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
 can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
 their board.

 Links:
 1. 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.

 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.

 Chris
 On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
 Hi Folks,

 please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
 I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
 conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
 opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
 not harp on this single quote.

 Thanks,
 Steffen


 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:

 If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
 quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Bence Damokos
I am not sure it would qualify as a public statement rather than a sentence
taken and quoted out of context from a closed meeting  - in other words, it
was not made at a public, accessible location, rather at a closed meeting
(with limited places, an entrance fee, etc.). While there are published
notes, the apparent quote is not present in them, and I would not be
surprised if the person in question was merely making a point to foster
debate.

For what its worth, rules like the one at the meeting can in theory foster
open debate on controversial topics (see e.g. the [[Chatham House Rule]])
and we should respect them. I for one would be sad if we were not able to
experiment with new models that foster open debate (while still maintaining
a level of transparency).

Best regards,
Bence


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Michael,

 Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work
 with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have
 signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This
 makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public
 statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with
 public minutes) they would be required to resign their position.
 Making public personal attacks against community members I would say
 could easily be a resigning matter too.

 Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally
 created body of bureaucracy.

 I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:
  I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs
 public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on.  I am
 also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state
 publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a
 third party, but restated shorn of all context.
 
  One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that
 witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if
 the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine
 warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission
 (which we all agree on, surely?).
 
  I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said
 that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to
 demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as
 a “philosophy”.
 
  Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would
 be anathema to us?  No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely
 self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not
 make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.
 
  Michael
 
 
 
  On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
  people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
  request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
  absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
  immediately.
 
  Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
  or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
  responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
  fuck the community?
 
  I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
  and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
  can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
  their board.
 
  Links:
  1.
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
  Fae
 
  On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was
 that
  individual contributions were made on a confidential and
 non-attributable
  basis.
 
  This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
  about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of
 some
  out-of-context quotes.
 
  Chris
  On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
  organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
  movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.
 
  As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
  our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
  this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
  workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
  to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
  leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.
 
  Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
  is making public statements 

[Wikimedia-l] United Nation of Wikimedia

2014-04-07 Thread Ting Chen

Hello dear all,

From 2008 on until recently the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had seen a 
staggering growth to fulfill its mission, and it had pulled a great deal 
of the resources, in money, but as well as in talent, manpower and 
volunteer's effort of the movement.



From the beginning hosting of the Wikimedia projects was the core 
competency of the WMF. A big part of the WMF budget and staff is 
dedicated to the operation of the servers. Meanwhile the main server 
farm is moved from Tampa, Florida to Ashburn, Virginia.



In the last years the WMF had evolved to the main development party of 
the MediaWiki software. The software and product development had drawn 
many resources and talents from around the world to San Francisco. Many 
developers were relocated to join the WMF team.



With the increased prominence of especially Wikipedia the WMF and its 
projects were facing more and more legal challenges in the past years. 
Law suits from around the world were reported since 2005. Because of 
this the WMF had expanded its legal team.



To improve its role as the leader of the movement and to settle the 
disputes between the WMF and chapters about the processing and 
distribution of the funding the WMF had evolved since 2010 into a grant 
making organization.



All in all the WMF is without doubt the center peace of the movement and 
claims four fifth of the expanses of the entire movement.



The recent dispute about the URAA motivated massive content deletions on 
Wikimedia Commons highlights the problem of this strong centralized 
approach.



In basic, the storage solution of the Wikimedia projects is still a very 
classical approach with two central database centers, both of them 
located in the US. This approach had repeatedly induced conflicts about 
what content can be stored and what cannot. It does not reflect the 
international character of the projects and had repeatedly induced 
critics on the Wikimedia projects to be US biased and it is, measured on 
today's storage technology, outdated. Even though currently the US law 
is one of the most liberal in relation to freedom of speech it does has 
its bias. The US copy right law for example is meanwhile one of the most 
restrictive and backward looking copy right laws in the entire world. 
Another example of the potential hazardous result of this approach are 
the image files that are currently stored in the individual projects. 
For example on Chinese Wikipedia images that are free according to the 
Chinese and Taiwanese copy right laws are stored directly there, and not 
on Commons. These images are nevertheless not free according to the US 
law and are stored in servers that are located in the US and distributed 
from there. This poses potential problems for all parties that are 
involved here: for the Foundation, for the project, for the community 
that is curating these images and for the users that are using these images.



In a larger sense the problem is not constrained to the file 
repositories, but also to the content. Even though the Foundation had 
increased its legal department and had tentatively tried to work out an 
approach to support its community in legal conflict basically it is 
still working with the old strategy: In case there is a legal case in a 
foreign country the Foundation will avoid the call of the court while 
the Chapter will deny any responsibility for the content. This leaves in 
the end all potential hazards to the volunteer who contributed the 
content. In case of a court suit he is probably the one that have the 
worse legal support and had to take the charge privately, even if he 
handled legally and in good will.



In my opinion, since the technology is ripe, it is time for the movement 
as a whole and WMF especially to seriously consider the approach of a 
distributed hosting. Files and contents that let's say are legal in the 
EU but not in the US should be able to be stored on a server located in 
the EU and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that 
are legal in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US 
should be able to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be 
distributed from there into the world. This approach is meanwhile 
technical viable and is used by almost all major international internet 
providers today.



This also means that the chapters, as far as there is one, should be 
able to take the responsibility for the content and the hosting of those 
servers in their country. They should be obliged to provide legal 
consultation and defense to the community, which means a distribution of 
the legal defense from a central point into the world, to the chapters 
and directly to the communities. Indeed the legal consultation and 
protection of the community is in my opinion one of the most missed duty 
of the chapters and the Foundation to the movement.



Every country, that meets a certain standard of freedom of speech, 
freedom and media 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] United Nation of Wikimedia

2014-04-07 Thread Thomas Morton
Hi Ting,

It's lovely to see such operatic vision! And I for one would love to see
some of those things happen.

But, just to bring it down a bit; the technological issues rear their ugly
heads. Engineering-wise, hosting Wikipedia is a tough problem. Distributing
Wikimedia hosting across the globe is very definitely a hard problem. If
it could even be considered in a 5 year project scope that would be IMO an
aggressive timescale :)

Also, I am not sure the WMF has attitude for decentralisation to chapters;
nota bene the work relating to Labs and Toolserver. So commercially that
might be a tough sell.

However, despite this, I hope enough people see something in your vision to
push forward change.

Tom




On 7 April 2014 14:39, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hello dear all,

 From 2008 on until recently the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had seen a
 staggering growth to fulfill its mission, and it had pulled a great deal of
 the resources, in money, but as well as in talent, manpower and volunteer's
 effort of the movement.


 From the beginning hosting of the Wikimedia projects was the core
 competency of the WMF. A big part of the WMF budget and staff is dedicated
 to the operation of the servers. Meanwhile the main server farm is moved
 from Tampa, Florida to Ashburn, Virginia.


 In the last years the WMF had evolved to the main development party of the
 MediaWiki software. The software and product development had drawn many
 resources and talents from around the world to San Francisco. Many
 developers were relocated to join the WMF team.


 With the increased prominence of especially Wikipedia the WMF and its
 projects were facing more and more legal challenges in the past years. Law
 suits from around the world were reported since 2005. Because of this the
 WMF had expanded its legal team.


 To improve its role as the leader of the movement and to settle the
 disputes between the WMF and chapters about the processing and distribution
 of the funding the WMF had evolved since 2010 into a grant making
 organization.


 All in all the WMF is without doubt the center peace of the movement and
 claims four fifth of the expanses of the entire movement.


 The recent dispute about the URAA motivated massive content deletions on
 Wikimedia Commons highlights the problem of this strong centralized
 approach.


 In basic, the storage solution of the Wikimedia projects is still a very
 classical approach with two central database centers, both of them located
 in the US. This approach had repeatedly induced conflicts about what
 content can be stored and what cannot. It does not reflect the
 international character of the projects and had repeatedly induced critics
 on the Wikimedia projects to be US biased and it is, measured on today's
 storage technology, outdated. Even though currently the US law is one of
 the most liberal in relation to freedom of speech it does has its bias. The
 US copy right law for example is meanwhile one of the most restrictive and
 backward looking copy right laws in the entire world. Another example of
 the potential hazardous result of this approach are the image files that
 are currently stored in the individual projects. For example on Chinese
 Wikipedia images that are free according to the Chinese and Taiwanese copy
 right laws are stored directly there, and not on Commons. These images are
 nevertheless not free according to the US law and are stored in servers
 that are located in the US and distributed from there. This poses potential
 problems for all parties that are involved here: for the Foundation, for
 the project, for the community that is curating these images and for the
 users that are using these images.


 In a larger sense the problem is not constrained to the file repositories,
 but also to the content. Even though the Foundation had increased its legal
 department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to support its
 community in legal conflict basically it is still working with the old
 strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the Foundation
 will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny any
 responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential
 hazards to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court
 suit he is probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to
 take the charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will.


 In my opinion, since the technology is ripe, it is time for the movement
 as a whole and WMF especially to seriously consider the approach of a
 distributed hosting. Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU
 but not in the US should be able to be stored on a server located in the EU
 and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal
 in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able
 to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from
 there 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program

2014-04-07 Thread Anna Torres
Dear Jamie,

Thanks for the report. As we are -WMAR- working on improving our
Educational Program we find it very useful. However, as Anne said it would
be great to know what it's exactly being reported in terms of programs in
order to find out which indicator is associated to each program.

Thank you!! Hope to hear from you asap.





2014-04-06 23:34 GMT-03:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com:

 Thanks for the links to the reports, Jaime.

 For the overall WEP report (as opposed to the also-linked WLM report) -
 could you please spell out on the Wiki page exactly what programs you are
 talking about, and link each to their specific report?  I'm having a hard
 time figuring out exactly what is being reported as part of the WEP, what
 projects are affected, and which programs have more participants.

 Thanks!

 Risker/Anne


 On 6 April 2014 21:30, Jaime Anstee jans...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Greetings,
 
  (Please pardon any cross-posting)
 
  The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on
 the
  Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta:
 
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM
 
  Highlights of the report include:
 
  ==Inputs==
 
  The average Wikipedia Education Program reported cost a total of almost
  $8,000 USD in total, and $275 each week to implement. The average
 Wikipedia
  Education Program invests a total of $67 US and 3 hours into recruiting
  each new editor participant.
 
 
  ==Participation==
 
  Program leaders reported participation rates ranging from 25 to 2,372,
 and
  programs lasted from two weeks to 21 months with an average of 37.5
 weeks.
 
 
  ==Outputs==
 
  For the seven reported Wikipedia Education Program implementations,
 almost
  3,000 different Wikimedia pages were created or improved. The average
  Wikipedia Education Program produces about 120 pages of content each
 week.
  The average program participant adds just under half a page of content to
  Wikipedia and creates or improves six wiki pages each week.
 
 
  ==Outcomes==
 
  Out of the 3,334 new editor participants in Wikipedia Education Program,
 36
  (1.2%) participants were active three months after the program ended;
 33
  (1.1%) were active six months after the programs ended.
 
  Questions are welcome and encouraged on the talk page.
 
  On behalf of the Program Evaluation team,
 
  Jaime
 
 
  --
 
  Jaime Anstee, Ph.D
  Program Evaluation Specialist
  Wikimedia Foundation
  +1.415.839.6885 ext 6869
  www.wikimediafoundation.org
 
  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
  sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
  *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/*
  ___
  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




-- 
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C Wikimedia Argentina*

*Imprime este correo solo si es realmente necesario*
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread eLib Project
Hey all!

As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
5 cent:

@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
(Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept  of
principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
like to. 

@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
dumb but also intelligent contributions.

@future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
world could have looked if this had been used more often...


Cheers,

gego


___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Béria Lima

 *@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants...*



I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?

_
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey all!

 As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
 5 cent:

 @Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
 trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
 (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
 Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept  of
 principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
 like to.

 @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
 express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
 afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
 participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
 important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
 it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
 with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
 dumb but also intelligent contributions.

 @future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
 comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
 get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
 the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
 world could have looked if this had been used more often...


 Cheers,

 gego


 ___
 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] United Nation of Wikimedia

2014-04-07 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
(Note this reply is entirely in my personal capacity, and does not in any
way represent anything at all official)

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

 Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU but not in the US
 should of the be able to be stored on a server located in the EU and
 distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal in
 PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able to
 be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from
 there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and is
 used by almost all major international internet providers today.


As I recall, the problem with this suggestion is that it wouldn't actually
work that way. For material that's illegal in the US but legal in the EU,
the US branch would be sued despite the material being hosted in the EU.
And similarly, for something legal in the US but not legal in the EU, the
EU branch would be sued. The end result would be that everyone everywhere
would have to comply with the *most* restrictive laws, not the least. And
if it did work, the individual contributors would still probably have to
watch out for liability.

Or is the idea here to have Wikipedia be run by a large number of
different legal entities? I don't have any idea of how that might work to
do more than guess that the necessary legal structure (if it's even
possible) would result in something hugely complex.
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Steffen Prößdorf
Dear all,

I beg your pardon, that I have quoted this statement in my blog.
As mentioned before, I had never intended to condemn anyone or even expose.

It served me merely to illustrate the various points of view. The fact that
this statement was highly exaggerated and was expressed in a moment of
excitement, should be clear for each by now.

Relating to the terms of the previously agreed-upon rules for this
workshop *(You
are OK to use and share the knowledge you gain, but not to make
confidential details public. So you can say afterwards I know a chapter
had X problem and this is what they did and it did/didn't work. But it
would not be OK to post on an email list afterwards I heard Wikimedia XX
had a treasurer called Joe Bloggs who stole all their money - what a bunch
of idiots.)* [1] I thought it was OK this way. I suppose I should have
been even more carefully.

Regards,
Steffen

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Information#Expectations


2014-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com:

 Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16:

  I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to
 be so anodyne, colourless, and always on message that the occasional
 spirited remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?


 Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla.
 https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/

 Nemo


 ___
 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




-- 
Steffen Prößdorf
Treasurer, member of the board
Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge
http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
___
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] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program

2014-04-07 Thread Jaime Anstee
Hello Anne,

Thank you for your interest. I have posted your question and the following
response on the report's talk page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs_talk:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP

Please continue with any further comments and dialogue there.

Best regards,

Jaime


== For the overall WEP report could you please spell out on the Wiki page
exactly what programs you are talking about, and link each to their
specific report?  I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what is being
reported as part of the WEP, what projects are affected, and which programs
have more participants. ==

:Program leaders who self-reported were assured their data would be
reported without their program name identifiers. With this low a report
count, even without program names listed in line with the data, this is
very difficult to do. The implementations reported here represent program
activity in the Arab world program, Czech Republic, Mexico, Nepal, Quebec,
and the US/Canada. The data reported at the bottom actually have unique
Report ID numbers that can be matched across the last three tables so
that you can actually regenerate the dataset missing only event names (See
Appendix heading More Data for the complete input, output, and outcome
data used in the report). Those data include the instructor classroom
count, number of program weeks, and participant counts for each
implementation reported. In the future we plan to ask program leaders what
level of identifiability in this reporting they are comfortable with and
include identifiers in cases in which reporters volunteer to share that
information publicly.
:However, as there is some expressed interest in possibly comparing
programs, I must restate the need for caution, at this early stage in the
reporting, with such small numbers of implementers reporting (less than 10%
potentially), we are aware that the data do not represent all programming,
and that the data are too variable to draw comparisons between programs
statistically.  Further, in the case where the count of classroom varies
highly across implementations, aggregate reporting of more than one-hundred
classrooms is not directly comparable to the reporting of a single
classroom since summative statistics from an increased number of
observations generates a ''regression to the mean'' and do not make for a
one-to-one comparison.
:These issues as well as any other comments and/or suggestions are welcome
on this talk page.

 __
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
No. You may want to look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
that you thought would stay in-camera under a gentleman's agreement.
To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.

It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] are accountable for
their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Calling Tomasz a
troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.

In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
turned around into how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
difficult questions.

Links:
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct

Fae

On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:

 *@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants...*



 I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
 of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
 words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?

 _
 *Béria Lima*

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
 construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


 On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey all!

 As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
 5 cent:

 @Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
 trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
 (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
 Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept  of
 principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
 like to.

 @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
 express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
 afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
 participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
 important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
 it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
 with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
 dumb but also intelligent contributions.

 @future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
 comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
 get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
 the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
 world could have looked if this had been used more often...


 Cheers,

 gego


 ___
 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



-- 
fae...@gmail.com 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
On the other other hand, having any sort of Chatham House Rule in an
organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one
of its core tenets..think about it people..

Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy
Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a
promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the
organisation has no need for any Chatham House Rule.

What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the
context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us
context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?

Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: corrupts the movement by
turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to
find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be
accountable.

Russavia
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread George William Herbert
Way to completely miss the point.

Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of 
views.  Nothing anyone has said disputes that.

If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after.


-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone

On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

 On the other other hand, having any sort of Chatham House Rule in an
 organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one
 of its core tenets..think about it people..
 
 Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy
 Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a
 promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the
 organisation has no need for any Chatham House Rule.
 
 What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the
 context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us
 context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?
 
 Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: corrupts the movement by
 turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to
 find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be
 accountable.
 
 Russavia
 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Risker
I think this topic has been overblown.  It's not as if anyone on this
mailing list has any right or opportunity to pressure a chapter to remove a
member of their Board - unless those individuals are members of the
specific chapter.  And really, if you're an active member of that chapter,
you should already be aware of the people who are on the Board, and their
general attitudes toward the community - and their definition of what they
consider to be the community they're representing or interacting with.

It's important to remember that there's a huge range in the extent and
nature of relationships between chapters and the editorial communities to
which they are most closely attached.  In some cases, the chapters are made
up almost entirely of active community members from a specific project; in
other cases, membership and voting rights in a chapter are linked to
donations or are wide open to anyone who wants to be a member, whether or
not they are active participants in any WMF project. Even when chapters
actively support editing community initiatives, those initiatives have to
fit within the broader umbrella of the project as a whole.  There are half
a dozen chapters whose members are most closely affiliated with English
Wikipedia, for example, so their ability to affect the broader community is
small.

There are examples on Meta of chapter trustees who do focus on the
separation between the chapters and the editing communities, and describe
where they see the two interfacing; those are public statements made by
individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those.  I'm not seeing a lot
of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single
individual for an uncontextualized comment attributed to them.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Keating
Just to clarify that I don't believe Tomasz, the original poster, was
trolling.

You, Ashley, have been doing so spectacularly :)
On 7 Apr 2014 16:50, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 No. You may want to look at
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
 this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
 let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
 trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
 honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
 that you thought would stay in-camera under a gentleman's agreement.
 To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
 Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
 higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
 to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.

 It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] are accountable for
 their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
 to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Calling Tomasz a
 troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
 in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
 community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
 forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
 always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
 would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.

 In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
 good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
 particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
 well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
 someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
 the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
 duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
 welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
 behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
 or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
 Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
 turned around into how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
 difficult questions.

 Links:
 1.
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  *@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
  Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants...*
 
 
 
  I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the
 promise
  of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
  words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
 
  _
  *Béria Lima*
 
  *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
  livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
  construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
 
 
  On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Hey all!
 
  As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
  5 cent:
 
  @Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
  Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
  trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
  (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
  Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept
  of
  principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
  like to.
 
  @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
  express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
  afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
  participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
  important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
  it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
  with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
  dumb but also intelligent contributions.
 
  @future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
  comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
  get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
  the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
  world could have looked if this had been used more often...
 
 
  Cheers,
 
  gego
 
 
  ___
  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] United Nation of Wikimedia

2014-04-07 Thread Simon Knight
This is very interesting Ting just to reply to one (fairly minor!) part re:
WMUK  WMDE strategy, I agree further sharing and coordination would be a
good thing (indeed, we did try to look to other chapters/organisations for
guidance) but I also think thinking about localisation of strategy is
important, and within the spirit of distribution. Im hoping we can discuss
both of these aspects - co-ordination, and localisation - at wmcon in
Berlin this week and would welcome thoughts on this element (on a new
thread probably).

Best

Simon
On 7 Apr 2014 16:49, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Ting,

 Thank you for sharing your view. It is interesting in many aspects,
 and I think that I support its spirit but I feel obliged to add a
 couple of points.

 2014-04-07 15:39 GMT+02:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
 [...]
  Even though the Foundation had increased its legal
  department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to support
 its
  community in legal conflict basically it is still working with the old
  strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the
 Foundation
  will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny any
  responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential
 hazards
  to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court suit he
 is
  probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to take the
  charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will.

 I can confirm that, this is precisely what Wikimedia italia is doing
 right now (and rightly so) for the infamous 20 million EURO lawsuit[1]
 you should already know about. Plus, the fact that we do not have any
 responsibility over the projects nor we want to intervene or
 manage them is in our bylaws[2] too.

 It is worth adding that following the law and jurisprudence in Italy
 (but mind that IANAL) the mere possession of servers can be enough for
 an Italian judge to consider you responsible of the contents. That's
 why Wikimedia Italia does not want any server.

 Moreover, the association itself is not a legal person and its rights
 and duties are exercised in the person of his legal representative,
 that is the chair (in Italian, presidente) So in the aforementioned
 case the lawsuit is on the shoulders and head of Frieda herself (which
 was the chair and legal representative at the time).
 You can imagine that in no way we can think that a single person
 accepts this kind of burden (I mean, we have already received a 20M EURO
 lawsuit and we don't even have any servers!).

 [...]

  This also means that the chapters, as far as there is one, should be
 able to
  take the responsibility for the content and the hosting of those servers
 in
  their country. They should be obliged to provide legal consultation and
  defense to the community, which means a distribution of the legal defense
  from a central point into the world, to the chapters and directly to the
  communities. Indeed the legal consultation and protection of the
 community
  is in my opinion one of the most missed duty of the chapters and the
  Foundation to the movement.

 Well, Wikimedia Italia is providing assistance to Frieda since day 1,
 of course. it is also worth mentioning that the case should reach its
 end sometimes this year (it needed only 5 years)

 Cristian
 (speaking in my personal capacity)

 [1]
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_50#Wikimedia_Italia_in_trouble
 [2] {{it}} http://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Statuto
 These are probably outdated:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/bylaws
 We have modified our bylaws in 2009 to become a registered non-profit:

 ___
 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] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program

2014-04-07 Thread Andre Engels
Ccml,bv ..
Op 7 apr. 2014 03:35 schreef Jaime Anstee jans...@wikimedia.org het
volgende:

 Greetings,

 (Please pardon any cross-posting)

 The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on the
 Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM

 Highlights of the report include:

 ==Inputs==

 The average Wikipedia Education Program reported cost a total of almost
 $8,000 USD in total, and $275 each week to implement. The average Wikipedia
 Education Program invests a total of $67 US and 3 hours into recruiting
 each new editor participant.


 ==Participation==

 Program leaders reported participation rates ranging from 25 to 2,372, and
 programs lasted from two weeks to 21 months with an average of 37.5 weeks.


 ==Outputs==

 For the seven reported Wikipedia Education Program implementations, almost
 3,000 different Wikimedia pages were created or improved. The average
 Wikipedia Education Program produces about 120 pages of content each week.
 The average program participant adds just under half a page of content to
 Wikipedia and creates or improves six wiki pages each week.


 ==Outcomes==

 Out of the 3,334 new editor participants in Wikipedia Education Program, 36
 (1.2%) participants were active three months after the program ended; 33
 (1.1%) were active six months after the programs ended.

 Questions are welcome and encouraged on the talk page.

 On behalf of the Program Evaluation team,

 Jaime


 --

 Jaime Anstee, Ph.D
 Program Evaluation Specialist
 Wikimedia Foundation
 +1.415.839.6885 ext 6869
 www.wikimediafoundation.org

 Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
 sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
 *https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/*
 ___
 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] United Nation of Wikimedia

2014-04-07 Thread Samuel Klein
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:

 Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU but not in the US
 should of the be able to be stored on a server located in the EU and
 distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal in
 PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able to
 be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from
 there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and is
 used by almost all major international internet providers today.

 As I recall, the problem with this suggestion is that it wouldn't actually
 work that way.

Something like this could work.

 For material that's illegal in the US but legal in the EU,

MediaWiki could be designed to more flexibly look for material from
multiple sources.  This can be host-neutral.

 the US branch would be sued despite the material being hosted in the EU.

 if it did work, the individual contributors would still probably have to
 watch out for liability.

There are problems to overcome.
As we have seen, people are sometimes sued even where there is no
legal case against them. And sometimes the Internet itself is
challenged, ISPs are pressured to change their policies, over content
issues.  But if you live in a country where a file is legal to copy
and share online, and you copy it to a server/website in that country
while correctly indicating its (c) status, it is difficult to find
fault with that.

How these local websites interact with one another, or with
international requests for geo-blocking, or with client readers and
international websites that help aggregate their contents, is a
trickier question.

A properly designed distributed system could go a long way towards
addressing some of the issues noted above.  And in the long run this
would make the projects more robust against certain attacks that (even
with multiple server farms) we are currently vulnerable to.  Thanks,
Ting, for starting this thread.

SJ

___
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] United Nation of Wikimedia

2014-04-07 Thread Peter Southwood

Why not?
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de

To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 3:39 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] United Nation of Wikimedia



Hello dear all,

From 2008 on until recently the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had seen a 
staggering growth to fulfill its mission, and it had pulled a great deal 
of the resources, in money, but as well as in talent, manpower and 
volunteer's effort of the movement.



From the beginning hosting of the Wikimedia projects was the core 
competency of the WMF. A big part of the WMF budget and staff is dedicated 
to the operation of the servers. Meanwhile the main server farm is moved 
from Tampa, Florida to Ashburn, Virginia.



In the last years the WMF had evolved to the main development party of the 
MediaWiki software. The software and product development had drawn many 
resources and talents from around the world to San Francisco. Many 
developers were relocated to join the WMF team.



With the increased prominence of especially Wikipedia the WMF and its 
projects were facing more and more legal challenges in the past years. Law 
suits from around the world were reported since 2005. Because of this the 
WMF had expanded its legal team.



To improve its role as the leader of the movement and to settle the 
disputes between the WMF and chapters about the processing and 
distribution of the funding the WMF had evolved since 2010 into a grant 
making organization.



All in all the WMF is without doubt the center peace of the movement and 
claims four fifth of the expanses of the entire movement.



The recent dispute about the URAA motivated massive content deletions on 
Wikimedia Commons highlights the problem of this strong centralized 
approach.



In basic, the storage solution of the Wikimedia projects is still a very 
classical approach with two central database centers, both of them located 
in the US. This approach had repeatedly induced conflicts about what 
content can be stored and what cannot. It does not reflect the 
international character of the projects and had repeatedly induced critics 
on the Wikimedia projects to be US biased and it is, measured on today's 
storage technology, outdated. Even though currently the US law is one of 
the most liberal in relation to freedom of speech it does has its bias. 
The US copy right law for example is meanwhile one of the most restrictive 
and backward looking copy right laws in the entire world. Another example 
of the potential hazardous result of this approach are the image files 
that are currently stored in the individual projects. For example on 
Chinese Wikipedia images that are free according to the Chinese and 
Taiwanese copy right laws are stored directly there, and not on Commons. 
These images are nevertheless not free according to the US law and are 
stored in servers that are located in the US and distributed from there. 
This poses potential problems for all parties that are involved here: for 
the Foundation, for the project, for the community that is curating these 
images and for the users that are using these images.



In a larger sense the problem is not constrained to the file repositories, 
but also to the content. Even though the Foundation had increased its 
legal department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to 
support its community in legal conflict basically it is still working with 
the old strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the 
Foundation will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny 
any responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential 
hazards to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court 
suit he is probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to 
take the charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will.



In my opinion, since the technology is ripe, it is time for the movement 
as a whole and WMF especially to seriously consider the approach of a 
distributed hosting. Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU 
but not in the US should be able to be stored on a server located in the 
EU and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are 
legal in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be 
able to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed 
from there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and 
is used by almost all major international internet providers today.



This also means that the chapters, as far as there is one, should be able 
to take the responsibility for the content and the hosting of those 
servers in their country. They should be obliged to provide legal 
consultation and defense to the community, which means a distribution of 
the legal defense from a central point into the world, to the chapters and 
directly to the communities. Indeed the legal 

[Wikimedia-l] New board Wikimedia Nederland

2014-04-07 Thread Frans Grijzenhout
It is with great pleasure that I present to you the new board of Wikimedia
Netherlands (WMNL).


During our General Assembly of March 29, 2014 the following persons were
elected for a new term of 1 year.


   -

   Ronn Boef - new Board member
   -

   Jan Anton Brouwer - Treasurer, board member since 2013
   -

   Justus de Bruijn - new Board member
   -

   André Engels - Secretary of the Board, new Board member
   -

   Frans Grijzenhout - Chair, Secretary since 2013, Board member since 2012
   -

   Ad Huikeshoven - Board member since 2012
   -

   Marlon Thé - new Board member


André en Ronn have been active Wikipedians for a long time and we are glad
that they are willing to serve the community in a different role.

Justus and Marlon are new to the Wikimedia community but both have a track
record in serving volunteer organizations.

The general meeting gave a warm applause to the two board members that
stepped down after serving the community for many years: Ziko van Dijk,
Board member and Chair since 2011 and Paul Becherer, who served as
Secretary of the Board and as Treasurer since 2010. They have led the Dutch
chapter in an outstanding way during turbulent years.

Frans Grijzenhout


-- 

*Frans Grijzenhout*, chair
fr...@wikimedia.nl
+31 6 5333 9499

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht

 http://www.wikimedia.nl/
___
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] New board Wikimedia Nederland

2014-04-07 Thread Jane Darnell
Frans,
Congratulations on your new role and I wish you and your team of
boardmembers all the best,
Jane

2014-04-07 22:26 GMT+02:00, Frans Grijzenhout fr...@wikimedia.nl:
 It is with great pleasure that I present to you the new board of Wikimedia
 Netherlands (WMNL).


 During our General Assembly of March 29, 2014 the following persons were
 elected for a new term of 1 year.


-

Ronn Boef - new Board member
-

Jan Anton Brouwer - Treasurer, board member since 2013
-

Justus de Bruijn - new Board member
-

André Engels - Secretary of the Board, new Board member
-

Frans Grijzenhout - Chair, Secretary since 2013, Board member since 2012
-

Ad Huikeshoven - Board member since 2012
-

Marlon Thé - new Board member


 André en Ronn have been active Wikipedians for a long time and we are glad
 that they are willing to serve the community in a different role.

 Justus and Marlon are new to the Wikimedia community but both have a track
 record in serving volunteer organizations.

 The general meeting gave a warm applause to the two board members that
 stepped down after serving the community for many years: Ziko van Dijk,
 Board member and Chair since 2011 and Paul Becherer, who served as
 Secretary of the Board and as Treasurer since 2010. They have led the Dutch
 chapter in an outstanding way during turbulent years.

 Frans Grijzenhout


 --

 *Frans Grijzenhout*, chair
 fr...@wikimedia.nl
 +31 6 5333 9499

 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht

  http://www.wikimedia.nl/
 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Carlos M. Colina
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?


Let her air her thoughts. Or has that also become forbidden?

M.

El 07/04/2014 12:16 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Ziko van Dijk wrote


I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...


Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during 
a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the 
minutes on Meta).


That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the 
fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that 
workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well 
who that person is.


I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a 
comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; 
however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some 
chapters and their respective communities.


Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better 
what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, 
I'm not sure.


Tomasz

___
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


--
*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain.

Carlos Manuel Colina
Vicepresidente
A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
RIF J-40129321-2
+972-52-4869915
www.wikimedia.org.ve
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Carlos M. Colina wrote:
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?


Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't 
need that useless bunch of moaning robots!


Tomasz

___
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] New board Wikimedia Nederland

2014-04-07 Thread Samuel Klein
Likewise!  Thank you, Frans and all.  Sam

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
 Frans,
 Congratulations on your new role and I wish you and your team of
 boardmembers all the best,
 Jane

 2014-04-07 22:26 GMT+02:00, Frans Grijzenhout fr...@wikimedia.nl:
 It is with great pleasure that I present to you the new board of Wikimedia
 Netherlands (WMNL).


 During our General Assembly of March 29, 2014 the following persons were
 elected for a new term of 1 year.


-

Ronn Boef - new Board member
-

Jan Anton Brouwer - Treasurer, board member since 2013
-

Justus de Bruijn - new Board member
-

André Engels - Secretary of the Board, new Board member
-

Frans Grijzenhout - Chair, Secretary since 2013, Board member since 2012
-

Ad Huikeshoven - Board member since 2012
-

Marlon Thé - new Board member


 André en Ronn have been active Wikipedians for a long time and we are glad
 that they are willing to serve the community in a different role.

 Justus and Marlon are new to the Wikimedia community but both have a track
 record in serving volunteer organizations.

 The general meeting gave a warm applause to the two board members that
 stepped down after serving the community for many years: Ziko van Dijk,
 Board member and Chair since 2011 and Paul Becherer, who served as
 Secretary of the Board and as Treasurer since 2010. They have led the Dutch
 chapter in an outstanding way during turbulent years.

 Frans Grijzenhout


 --

 *Frans Grijzenhout*, chair
 fr...@wikimedia.nl
 +31 6 5333 9499

 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht

  http://www.wikimedia.nl/
 ___
 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



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Carlos M. Colina
Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You 
guys are overreacting over it.



M.

El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Carlos M. Colina wrote:
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?


Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't 
need that useless bunch of moaning robots!


Tomasz

___
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


--
*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain.

Carlos Manuel Colina
Vicepresidente
A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
RIF J-40129321-2
+972-52-4869915
www.wikimedia.org.ve
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Michael Peel
I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What 
happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

Thanks,
Mike

On 7 Apr 2014, at 22:38, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:

 Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are 
 overreacting over it.
 
 
 M.
 
 El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:
 Carlos M. Colina wrote:
 I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
 absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?
 
 Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need 
 that useless bunch of moaning robots!
 
Tomasz
 
 ___
 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
 
 -- 
 *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
 junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain.
 Carlos Manuel Colina
 Vicepresidente
 A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
 RIF J-40129321-2
 +972-52-4869915
 www.wikimedia.org.ve
 ___
 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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread David Gerard
On 7 April 2014 22:40, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:

 I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What 
 happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?


This year, Fae and Russavia.


- d.

___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Liam Wyatt
On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:

What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

  There used to be intelligent conversation on wikimedia-l? As I remember
it foundation-l was always famous for a seemingly endless supply
of controversy (mostly hyperbole), conspiracy, pedantry and
he-said-she-said petty attacks. I don't think there ever was a 'good old
days', only the protagonists change. Unless that was the point you were
actually making? :-)


-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love  metadata
___
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Hubert Laska
With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is 
the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make 
decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but 
then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose 
services are the basis for their own position.


Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me 
is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by 
edits and edits.


Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking 
photos, one after another and upload them?


I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart 
explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If 
this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.


h
Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

Hoi,
What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
in everyone's benefit??
Thanks,
  Gerard


On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:


Ziko van Dijk wrote


  I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in

public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...


Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on
Meta).

That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is.

I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
chapters and their respective communities.

Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure.


 Tomasz

___
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



___
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

2014-04-07 Thread James Salsman
Pete Forsyth wrote:

... there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much
 and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages
 in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're
 related to our vision, our mission, our strategic plan, and our
 model of community governance.

Any new set of potential advocacy topics based on no editor growth
instead of exponential editor growth should be reviewed for legality,
compatibility with vision and mission, but not strategy or governance,
because choices made for those topics are necessarily influenced by
the volunteer growth rate. Thereby circular dependency in reasoning
can be avoided. If someone implies that some of them are illegal or
incompatible with vision or mission without saying which ones or why,
then I generally don't take them seriously. People have had plenty of
time to raise specific objections for specific reasons, and over time
the extent to which they have or have not becomes significant. And I
agree with James Alexander's concern about spreading effort too thin,
which is why I've been trying to encourage ranking the combined set at
http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft
which has been picking up a little lately.

So I hope the Foundation will survey an accurately representative
cross-section of volunteers to find their relative preferences on a
set of advocacy topics which assumes no editor growth instead of
exponential editor growth. Any such survey would have design
trade-offs involving how much to weigh preferences by volunteer
effort, and I very much want to move on to that topic, except for the
fact that it should be possible to collect that data and decide later
by looking at how different rankings turn out. Which may be the only
way to do it, because I can't figure out how to decide how much more
important someone's opinion should be if they've made thousands of
edits compared to someone who's made a dozen. I will raise that
question on wiki-research-l when I come up with something that feels
like a reasonable answer two it, or a week or two if I can't. But
again, the Foundation can do this and should do it. Luckily community
volunteers can do it to, so if there is ever any question about fraud
or misconduct, that can be audited by the community, which is what
open collaborative editing is supposed to be about.

Best regards,
James Salsman

___
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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-04-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
All:

I have added my own timeline to the page set up to debrief the Belfer
Center Wikipedian in Residence project:
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment#Pete_Forsyth_notes

I also published a response to the WMF report:
http://wikistrategies.net/belfer1/

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  We will update the wiki page at
 
 https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment
  with more information and details. I encourage others to participate
  in this as a collaborative process.

 Thanks Erik.

 For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a
 postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link
 from Erik above. Suffice to say here that we implemented the Belfer
 Wikipedian-in-Residence project with editing as a core activity of the
 WIR role, despite internal and external voices strongly advising us
 not to. That was a mistake, and we shouldn't have done it.

 I want to apologize for it, particularly to Asaf Bartov, Siko
 Bouterse, LiAnna Davis, Frank Schulenburg, Pete Forsyth, Lori Phillips
 and Liam Wyatt, who tried to guide the project in the right direction
 and whose voices didn't get heard. We did advise the Belfer Center and
 the Wikipedian-in-Residence about conflict-of-interest policies on
 enWP, and so far we haven't seen any evidence to suggest major
 problems with Timothy's edits. That said, we didn't structure the
 program in a way that would've appropriately mitigated the risk of
 problematic edits, and we wish we had. We also wish we'd been better
 able to support our partner organizations in understanding and
 navigating community policies and best practices.

 Thanks,
 Sue

 ___
 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
Annd queue crickets.


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 All:

 I have added my own timeline to the page set up to debrief the Belfer
 Center Wikipedian in Residence project:

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

 I also published a response to the WMF report:
 http://wikistrategies.net/belfer1/

 -Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]


 On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

  On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
   We will update the wiki page at
  
 
 https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment
   with more information and details. I encourage others to participate
   in this as a collaborative process.
 
  Thanks Erik.
 
  For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a
  postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link
  from Erik above. Suffice to say here that we implemented the Belfer
  Wikipedian-in-Residence project with editing as a core activity of the
  WIR role, despite internal and external voices strongly advising us
  not to. That was a mistake, and we shouldn't have done it.
 
  I want to apologize for it, particularly to Asaf Bartov, Siko
  Bouterse, LiAnna Davis, Frank Schulenburg, Pete Forsyth, Lori Phillips
  and Liam Wyatt, who tried to guide the project in the right direction
  and whose voices didn't get heard. We did advise the Belfer Center and
  the Wikipedian-in-Residence about conflict-of-interest policies on
  enWP, and so far we haven't seen any evidence to suggest major
  problems with Timothy's edits. That said, we didn't structure the
  program in a way that would've appropriately mitigated the risk of
  problematic edits, and we wish we had. We also wish we'd been better
  able to support our partner organizations in understanding and
  navigating community policies and best practices.
 
  Thanks,
  Sue
 
  ___
  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

___
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