Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

I replied to a few questions at the main page talk:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F

Regards,
Jee


On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> *contradictory meanings, not ideas - I just woke up from a nap and am
> typing like a sleepy person.
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less
> > contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright.  I meant
> > oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process
> doesn't
> > go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what
> we
> > do to especially nasty content instead of revdel.  (I would consider any
> > process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects
> with
> > so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.)
> >
> > -
> > Kevin Gorman
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence
> > UC Berkeley
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth  >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> >>
> >> > there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that
> all
> >> > other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page
> >> > selected by pretty much one person with no
> >>
> >>
> >> I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean:
> >>
> >>
> >> > oversight.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Kevin Gorman]

*contradictory meanings, not ideas - I just woke up from a nap and am
typing like a sleepy person.


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less
> contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright.  I meant
> oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't
> go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we
> do to especially nasty content instead of revdel.  (I would consider any
> process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with
> so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.)
>
> -
> Kevin Gorman
> Wikipedian-in-Residence
> UC Berkeley
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>>
>> > there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all
>> > other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page
>> > selected by pretty much one person with no
>>
>>
>> I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean:
>>
>>
>> > oversight.
>> >
>>
>> ???
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Kevin Gorman]

Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less
contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright.  I meant
oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't
go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we
do to especially nasty content instead of revdel.  (I would consider any
process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with
so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.)

-
Kevin Gorman
Wikipedian-in-Residence
UC Berkeley


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all
> > other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page
> > selected by pretty much one person with no
>
>
> I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean:
>
>
> > oversight.
> >
>
> ???
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all
> other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page
> selected by pretty much one person with no


I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean:


> oversight.
>

???

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Kevin Gorman]

David, the only reason the discussion at T:MP is active is *because* a
discussion was started here.  Prior to this thread being started, comments
at both COM:AN and T:MP had gone without reply for quite a while.  I don't
think it's terribly productive to complain about forumshopping in a thread
about something that effects substantially more than just one project and
was started before any of the threads on commons actually had active
discussion.  Doubly so because, as Risker points out, other projects
transclude Commons' MOTD in to their frontpages, including projects in
languages that do not number among the five that had any degree of context
provided.

Nathan: I don't think there's any question that the video *could* have been
appropriately featured, although it would have been harder to do on Commons
than on a monolingual project. With a different still and the use of
Wikidata to pull appropriate contextual information - which I believe is
possible, though correct me if I'm wrong - Buchenwald is object Q152802 on
Wikidata - the video could have been appropriately featured.  Wikidata has
enough interwiki links that it would've been possible to provide
appropriate contextual information to a great majority of viewers of
commons, whereas as it was many of them just saw a grainy black and white
image of a stack of corpses with no context and no ability to actually even
play the video in question (most Wikimedia viewers cannot play the video
formats we support.)

Pete: you're right that discussion of how to improve process is something
that needs to happen, although I think continuing discussion of the MOTD in
question is worthwhile given that it's selection flies in the face of both
commonsense and a WMF board resolution and a significant fraction of
regular Commons contributors don't seem to see an issue with it. I'm happy
to participate in any discussion about process, to assist in any process
that results from such a discussion, and will probably start a discussion
about it myself in the relatively near future if no one beats me to it -
there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all
other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page
selected by pretty much one person with no oversight.


Kevin Gorman


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker  wrote:
>
> >The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
> > people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.
>
>
> You could go to Talk:Main Page and say that there. The discussion is
> quite active.
>
> Argument from "I don't like it" in a forum-shopped venue, however,
> really isn't convincing.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Michael Maggs]

> On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker  wrote:
> 
>> The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
>> people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.
> 

The process on Commons for selecting what goes on the front page is very 
lightweight, and this was a decision made by one person, in the normal way.  
That’s going to mean that sometimes others might disagree.

It would be perfectly possible to set up some sort of more labour-intensive 
system if people really want that. It would be easy to do: please, everyone, 
just come over to Commons and volunteer your time.

Michael


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Pete Forsyth]

As I just pointed out on the talk page -- this is no longer the Media of
the Day. It's a new day. There is new media.

So I think continuing to use Wikimedia-L to debate the *specifics* of this
case is not so great. Any comments on the *general* points made above, by
myself and a few others?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]



On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 9 May 2014 16:14, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > >The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
> > > people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.
> >
> >
> > You could go to Talk:Main Page and say that there. The discussion is
> > quite active.
> >
> > Argument from "I don't like it" in a forum-shopped venue, however,
> > really isn't convincing.
> >
> >
>
> Who's arguing from "I don't like it"?  Seems to me the entire purpose of
> putting this on the main page was "I really want people to be upset", which
> in other contexts we call "trolling" - something that you've spoken out
> about on numerous occasions.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Risker]

On 9 May 2014 16:14, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker  wrote:
>
> >The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
> > people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.
>
>
> You could go to Talk:Main Page and say that there. The discussion is
> quite active.
>
> Argument from "I don't like it" in a forum-shopped venue, however,
> really isn't convincing.
>
>

Who's arguing from "I don't like it"?  Seems to me the entire purpose of
putting this on the main page was "I really want people to be upset", which
in other contexts we call "trolling" - something that you've spoken out
about on numerous occasions.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[David Gerard]

On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker  wrote:

>The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
> people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.


You could go to Talk:Main Page and say that there. The discussion is
quite active.

Argument from "I don't like it" in a forum-shopped venue, however,
really isn't convincing.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Risker]

Ah yes, David.  We must shock people into being aware of what is happening
in the world.  It's mandatory. How else would Wikimedia function?

I know that's sarcastic.  But it's exactly the kind of attitude - that
forcing people to confront whatever cause the POTD/MOTD person wants them
to confront is a useful method of education - that reduces the value of
Commons.  The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.  Yes,
the world is brutal.  It's not our job to make it less so, nor is our job
to confront people with its brutality unexpectedly. Is that image
appropriate for viewers who have themselves been victims of violence,
including all those in the countries mentioned? What about Holocaust
survivors, many of whom still suffer from the horrendous trauma of those
events more than sixty years later?  They have to see this again so that...
why exactly?

Risker/Anne




On 9 May 2014 16:00, David Gerard  wrote:

> The actual argument from Talk:Main Page:
>
> "Well, I have deliberately selected this frame. And yes, it is a
> shocking picture of victims killed by the inhumanity of a totalitarian
> ideology. The frame shows exactly the result of such a belief. For me
> a "softer" motive would be a belittlement of the historical events in
> Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but the world is often shockingly brutal,
> this is the reality in which we must still live (open your eyes in
> direction to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South-Sudan, Nigeria and so on
> and so on...). "
>
> I don't find your morning cornflakes (please don't try to claim third
> parties' cornflakes) a compelling counterargument.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 17 -- 07 May 2014

[Wikipedia Signpost]

In focus: Foundation announces long-awaited new executive director
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/In_focus

News and notes: New system of discretionary sanctions; Buchenwald; is Pirelli 
'Cracking Wikipedia'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/News_and_notes

WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/WikiCup

In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/In_the_media

WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/WikiProject_report

Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/Featured_content

Traffic report: TMZedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/Traffic_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07


https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[David Gerard]

The actual argument from Talk:Main Page:

"Well, I have deliberately selected this frame. And yes, it is a
shocking picture of victims killed by the inhumanity of a totalitarian
ideology. The frame shows exactly the result of such a belief. For me
a "softer" motive would be a belittlement of the historical events in
Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but the world is often shockingly brutal,
this is the reality in which we must still live (open your eyes in
direction to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South-Sudan, Nigeria and so on
and so on...). "

I don't find your morning cornflakes (please don't try to claim third
parties' cornflakes) a compelling counterargument.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Risker]

Just to note - many other projects feature the Commons picture and media of
the day on their main pages.  It would not just be Commons users who came
upon this image; it would have been readers and visitors from several dozen
other projects, many of whose languages are not includd in the image
information, who were perhaps unexpectedly greeted by an image of stacked
dead bodies with their morning cornflakes - and based on the discussion on
Commons, being confronted with this deliberately and intentionally, and in
a format that the majority of people cannot access or mitigate.

Risker/Anne




On 9 May 2014 15:50, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Leigh: I don't want to cover that up, which is why I explicitly support
> us
> > having the video and other relevant images, and using them in a way that
> > provides educational/editorial value. Yesterday, most viewers couldn't
> have
> > played the video the still linked to, because it was in a format
> relatively
> > few browsers support.  Context for the image was only provided in 5
> > languages, whereas we run projects in 287 different languages.  For any
> > viewer who didn't speak one of those five languages and who couldn't play
> > the video (and most viewers can't play the video,) the still wouldn't
> have
> > had the effect of serving as a shocking reminder of the events of the
> > holocaust.  It would've just been a grainy black and white stack of
> corpses
> > decontextualised from any meaning.
> >
> >
> Kevin - can I ask, if the video were playable by many or most people, would
> that make it acceptable to you? What proportion of Commons viewers (as
> opposed to the number of languages supported by any Wikimedia project) need
> to be able to read the explanation before the context issue is resolved? To
> me, context and accessibility are really secondary questions that assume
> the fundamental question of appropriateness has already been answered
> positively.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Pete Forsyth]

All, I'd like to address this issue as a frequent Commons contributor, and
as somebody who actually got heavily involved with Commons a few years ago
due to an issue much like this one.

 There are often front-page images on Commons that are questionable,
because they offend somebody's sensibilities, or -- in my view, worse --
because they are placed there more for self-promotion, than to advance our
educational mission.

When this happens, there is a natural assumption -- one that I made myself
a few years ago[1]:

* There is a process for choosing the Picture (or Media) of the Day, and
that process is not working right.

But that assumption is incorrect! Instead, the sad truth is essentially
this:

* THERE IS NO PROCESS FOR CHOOSING THE PICTURE OF THE DAY.[2]

Anybody can select an upcoming picture of the day; and although these
selections are visible ahead of time, there is no active editorial
community poring over them and making decisions. So all it takes is ONE
person's error in judgment, or unabashed self-promotion, for GARBAGE to
appear on the front page of Wikimedia Commons *and* all the projects that
automatically pull Commons' POTD for their own POTD.

Coming from the perspective of English Wikipedia, which has a huge
community of people making editorial decisions about all kinds of things,
this is not an easy concept to get used to. And if we really want to talk
about a general solution (I do!), it will require addressing a very
different state of affairs than we usually find on English Wikipedia.

Pharos suggests we should have "more process" and Andrew Lih points out
that, prior to this email list discussion, there was no on-wiki discussion
to fork. These are important points to consider! How can you create
effective processes and discussions, when there is no coherent group
standing ready to implement them?

It's easy to shake our fists at the state of things. Actually creating
something that will avoid future problems, though, will take a lot of work
from a lot of people. How can we make that happen?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/PotD
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_day/Instructions


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

> FWIW, the still caught my eye (uncommon for the media section of the page)
> and I read the caption, which does give context.
>
> The main product of Buchenwald and other camps was death. Why do we want
> to cover that up?  I saw nothing wrong with it, just as there was nothing
> wrong with all the photographs of the dead I saw in school hallways as part
> of Holocaust remembrances.
>
> Offensive is gore for the sake of gore. Obviously, this is not the case
> here.
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:11:49 -0700
> > From: kgor...@gmail.com
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't
> prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> >
> > Pine: besides the unusually high effect Commons has on other projects
> (most
> > projects are essentially forced to use Commons,) Commons' lack of a local
> > canvassing policy, and the general unenforceability of canvassing
> policies
> > on mailing lists anyway, when a local project has a low population of
> > active editors and is pretty consistently making poor decisions that
> impact
> > all projects, I see absolutely nothing wrong with raising the discussion
> at
> > a higher-than-local level, and don't think that raising a discussion at a
> > higher-than-local level needs to be done in a neutral fashion.  I think
> > that Commons' not uncommonly acts in a way that is actively detrimental
> to
> > every other project (and a way that is certainly actively detrimental to
> > building relationships with edu and GLAM institutions,) and given that
> > there's not a large local population on Commons, think a non-neutral
> > posting to a broader audience is absolutely appropriate.  Discussion of
> > issues with the Acehnese Wikipedia years ago wasn't confined to the
> > Acehnese Wikipedia, and in recent years issues with the Kazakh Wikipedia
> > and at least a couple of other projects have been brought up on a meta
> > level as well. (The fact that the decision to put a piece of content like
> > this on Common's frontpage was made by *two people* highlights an issue
> as
> > well..)
> >
> > I'm not upset about the fact that we have a video of the aftermath of the
> > liberation of Buchenwald on Commons - if we didn't, I'd go find one and
> > upload it.  It's an event (and a video) of enormous historic
> significance,
> > and not one that should ever be forgotten.  I'm not even opposed to
> > featuring it on Commons' frontpage - in a way that adheres to the
> principle
> > of least astonishment and provides viewers with context.  That's not what
> > was done here.  A still image featuring a pile of corpses was put on
> > Commons' frontpage with any context wha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Nathan]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

>
>
> Leigh: I don't want to cover that up, which is why I explicitly support us
> having the video and other relevant images, and using them in a way that
> provides educational/editorial value. Yesterday, most viewers couldn't have
> played the video the still linked to, because it was in a format relatively
> few browsers support.  Context for the image was only provided in 5
> languages, whereas we run projects in 287 different languages.  For any
> viewer who didn't speak one of those five languages and who couldn't play
> the video (and most viewers can't play the video,) the still wouldn't have
> had the effect of serving as a shocking reminder of the events of the
> holocaust.  It would've just been a grainy black and white stack of corpses
> decontextualised from any meaning.
>
>
Kevin - can I ask, if the video were playable by many or most people, would
that make it acceptable to you? What proportion of Commons viewers (as
opposed to the number of languages supported by any Wikimedia project) need
to be able to read the explanation before the context issue is resolved? To
me, context and accessibility are really secondary questions that assume
the fundamental question of appropriateness has already been answered
positively.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Kevin Gorman]

David: when I started this discussion, there was literally nothing but
crickets on Commons.  Since starting this discussion prompted a discussion
on Commons to actually start, yes, I have engaged in it.  Writing up
replies to posts takes time and I happened to send my reply to this thread
before replying to Commons, and replied to Commons within five minutes of
your post going out (and spent the time between sending my message here and
posting to Commons, er, formulating replies to people on Commons and
talking with another person over chat about the situation.)

Leigh: I don't want to cover that up, which is why I explicitly support us
having the video and other relevant images, and using them in a way that
provides educational/editorial value. Yesterday, most viewers couldn't have
played the video the still linked to, because it was in a format relatively
few browsers support.  Context for the image was only provided in 5
languages, whereas we run projects in 287 different languages.  For any
viewer who didn't speak one of those five languages and who couldn't play
the video (and most viewers can't play the video,) the still wouldn't have
had the effect of serving as a shocking reminder of the events of the
holocaust.  It would've just been a grainy black and white stack of corpses
decontextualised from any meaning.

To resnip a bit from my last post,  I would explicitly support featuring
this video (or an article about Buchenwald, etc,) albeit with a different
freezeframe and appropriate context provided, on the frontpage of the
English Wikipedia or any other project where it was actually possible to
provide appropriate context to the viewership of the project.  ENWP's
article about Buchenwald - quite rightly - contains numerous images more
graphic than the one that was on Commons front page yesterday.  They add
significant educational value to the article - and they also only appear
past the lede of the article, at a point when anyone reading the article
will be fully aware what the article is about and will have intentionally
sought the article out - rather than, say, going to Commons to look up an
image of a horse and being confronted with a freezeframe of a stack of
bodies from a video your browser cannot play with context provided only in
languages you do not speak.


Kevin Gorman
Wikipedian-in-Residence
UC Berkeley


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 9 May 2014 20:11, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > Pine: besides the unusually high effect Commons has on other projects
> (most
> > projects are essentially forced to use Commons,) Commons' lack of a local
>
>
> Have you raised this in response to the actual, and extensive,
> discussion on Talk:Main Page? e.g., in response to the person who put
> it there?
>
> Oh, I see you haven't - you've just said "I'm taking this elsewhere."
>
> You probably should address his substantive points directly. There are
> quite a few, and I found them quite convincing.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

FWIW, the still caught my eye (uncommon for the media section of the page) and 
I read the caption, which does give context.

The main product of Buchenwald and other camps was death. Why do we want to 
cover that up?  I saw nothing wrong with it, just as there was nothing wrong 
with all the photographs of the dead I saw in school hallways as part of 
Holocaust remembrances.

Offensive is gore for the sake of gore. Obviously, this is not the case here.



> Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:11:49 -0700
> From: kgor...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently 
> feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> 
> Pine: besides the unusually high effect Commons has on other projects (most
> projects are essentially forced to use Commons,) Commons' lack of a local
> canvassing policy, and the general unenforceability of canvassing policies
> on mailing lists anyway, when a local project has a low population of
> active editors and is pretty consistently making poor decisions that impact
> all projects, I see absolutely nothing wrong with raising the discussion at
> a higher-than-local level, and don't think that raising a discussion at a
> higher-than-local level needs to be done in a neutral fashion.  I think
> that Commons' not uncommonly acts in a way that is actively detrimental to
> every other project (and a way that is certainly actively detrimental to
> building relationships with edu and GLAM institutions,) and given that
> there's not a large local population on Commons, think a non-neutral
> posting to a broader audience is absolutely appropriate.  Discussion of
> issues with the Acehnese Wikipedia years ago wasn't confined to the
> Acehnese Wikipedia, and in recent years issues with the Kazakh Wikipedia
> and at least a couple of other projects have been brought up on a meta
> level as well. (The fact that the decision to put a piece of content like
> this on Common's frontpage was made by *two people* highlights an issue as
> well..)
> 
> I'm not upset about the fact that we have a video of the aftermath of the
> liberation of Buchenwald on Commons - if we didn't, I'd go find one and
> upload it.  It's an event (and a video) of enormous historic significance,
> and not one that should ever be forgotten.  I'm not even opposed to
> featuring it on Commons' frontpage - in a way that adheres to the principle
> of least astonishment and provides viewers with context.  That's not what
> was done here.  A still image featuring a pile of corpses was put on
> Commons' frontpage with any context whatsoever only provided for viewers of
> five languages - and we run projects in 287 different languages.  More than
> that, since Commons only supports open video formats, a sizable majority of
> people who use Wikimedia projects are literally incapable of actually
> playing the video in question.  Is there enough journalistic or educational
> value in displaying a still photo of a pile of corpses that links to a
> video that cannot be played by most people that provides after the fact
> context in only 5 of the 287 languages we run projects in to justify
> putting it on Commons front page?  I'm gonna go with no.
> 
> FWIW: I would explicitly support featuring this video (or an article about
> Buchenwald, etc,) albeit with a different freezeframe and appropriate
> context provided, on the frontpage of the English Wikipedia or any other
> project where it was actually possible to provide appropriate context to
> the viewership of the project.  ENWP's article about Buchenwald - quite
> rightly - contains numerous images more graphic than the one that was on
> Commons front page yesterday.  They add significant educational value to
> the article - and they also only appear past the lede of the article, at a
> point when anyone reading the article will be fully aware what the article
> is about and will have intentionally sought the article out - rather than,
> say, going to Commons to look up an image of a horse and being confronted
> with a freezeframe of a stack of bodies from a video your browser cannot
> play with context provided only in languages you do not speak.
> 
> -
> Kevin Gorman
> Wikipedian-in-Residence
> American Cultures Program
> UC Berkeley
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> >
> > > See the comment by Pristurus<
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pristurus>
> > >  at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jee
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it.
> > > > Comment
> > > > > there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if
> > > other
> > > > > interests. ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Rega

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[David Gerard]

On 9 May 2014 20:11, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Pine: besides the unusually high effect Commons has on other projects (most
> projects are essentially forced to use Commons,) Commons' lack of a local


Have you raised this in response to the actual, and extensive,
discussion on Talk:Main Page? e.g., in response to the person who put
it there?

Oh, I see you haven't - you've just said "I'm taking this elsewhere."

You probably should address his substantive points directly. There are
quite a few, and I found them quite convincing.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Concerns regarding the APG Proposal from CIS, India

[Hari Prasad Nadig]

Fellow Wikimedians,

There were several concerns raised about the CIS India's APG Proposal here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/The_Centre_for_Internet_and_Society/Proposal_form

Despite those, the FDC process seems to be moving on, with apparently the
staff assessment not taking the comments from the community into account
seriously. My concerns about this are stated here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/The_Centre_for_Internet_and_Society/Staff_proposal_assessment

Kindly participate in the discussion and help steer this in the right
direction.

Thank you,
-- 
Hari Prasad Nadig
http://hpnadig.net
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpnadig
FlickR: http://flickr.com/hpnadig
Wikipedia: [[User:HPN]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Kevin Gorman]

Pine: besides the unusually high effect Commons has on other projects (most
projects are essentially forced to use Commons,) Commons' lack of a local
canvassing policy, and the general unenforceability of canvassing policies
on mailing lists anyway, when a local project has a low population of
active editors and is pretty consistently making poor decisions that impact
all projects, I see absolutely nothing wrong with raising the discussion at
a higher-than-local level, and don't think that raising a discussion at a
higher-than-local level needs to be done in a neutral fashion.  I think
that Commons' not uncommonly acts in a way that is actively detrimental to
every other project (and a way that is certainly actively detrimental to
building relationships with edu and GLAM institutions,) and given that
there's not a large local population on Commons, think a non-neutral
posting to a broader audience is absolutely appropriate.  Discussion of
issues with the Acehnese Wikipedia years ago wasn't confined to the
Acehnese Wikipedia, and in recent years issues with the Kazakh Wikipedia
and at least a couple of other projects have been brought up on a meta
level as well. (The fact that the decision to put a piece of content like
this on Common's frontpage was made by *two people* highlights an issue as
well..)

I'm not upset about the fact that we have a video of the aftermath of the
liberation of Buchenwald on Commons - if we didn't, I'd go find one and
upload it.  It's an event (and a video) of enormous historic significance,
and not one that should ever be forgotten.  I'm not even opposed to
featuring it on Commons' frontpage - in a way that adheres to the principle
of least astonishment and provides viewers with context.  That's not what
was done here.  A still image featuring a pile of corpses was put on
Commons' frontpage with any context whatsoever only provided for viewers of
five languages - and we run projects in 287 different languages.  More than
that, since Commons only supports open video formats, a sizable majority of
people who use Wikimedia projects are literally incapable of actually
playing the video in question.  Is there enough journalistic or educational
value in displaying a still photo of a pile of corpses that links to a
video that cannot be played by most people that provides after the fact
context in only 5 of the 287 languages we run projects in to justify
putting it on Commons front page?  I'm gonna go with no.

FWIW: I would explicitly support featuring this video (or an article about
Buchenwald, etc,) albeit with a different freezeframe and appropriate
context provided, on the frontpage of the English Wikipedia or any other
project where it was actually possible to provide appropriate context to
the viewership of the project.  ENWP's article about Buchenwald - quite
rightly - contains numerous images more graphic than the one that was on
Commons front page yesterday.  They add significant educational value to
the article - and they also only appear past the lede of the article, at a
point when anyone reading the article will be fully aware what the article
is about and will have intentionally sought the article out - rather than,
say, going to Commons to look up an image of a horse and being confronted
with a freezeframe of a stack of bodies from a video your browser cannot
play with context provided only in languages you do not speak.

-
Kevin Gorman
Wikipedian-in-Residence
American Cultures Program
UC Berkeley


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > See the comment by Pristurus<
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pristurus>
> >  at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it.
> > > Comment
> > > > there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if
> > other
> > > > interests. ;)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jee
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> Ah, thanks. Amazing how handy links are. I was a little surprised to see
> that even on that talkpage, you asked people to move the discussion to yet
> a different page. I asked that question because a debate on the merits
> might be somewhat moot if the still was selected randomly or by software,
> it's interesting to see that it wasn't.
>
> In any case, Pristurus has a good point and one that it would be hard to
> craft a policy around. Least astonishment is a useful principle, but it
> doesn't beat out journalistic and/or educational value. Newspapers,
> magazines, textbooks and other sources of educational material often pick
> striking images of tragic or shocking circumstances. The point is precisely
> to draw attention, to disrupt the consciousness of the viewer so that the
> meaning behind the imag

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is a
mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the
assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real
knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation. Foundation
would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not
happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without anyone
in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program impact
in its local setting.
As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical. That
should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.

Erlend Bjørtvedt
Wmno

Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker  følgende:

> Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid a
> potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
> Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]
>
> If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
> assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
> the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
> (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."  The FDC can
> explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it
> desires.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.&diff=0&oldid=8460331
>
>
> On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek  wrote:
>
> > Hi Risker,
> >
> > It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
> out. I
> > have corrected it in the assessment.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kasia
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> >
> > > Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> > > request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> > > it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request,
> > and
> > > implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
> > >
> > > The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed
> > any
> > > assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
> > >
> > > The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC,
> > and
> > > > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
> > request,
> > > > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus
> > true,
> > > > although may sound misleading.
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > >
> > > > dj "pundit"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely
> > agree
> > > > with
> > > > > the assessment.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it
> > was
> > > > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the
> > introduction
> > > to
> > > > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
> > > their
> > > > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
> > consistent
> > > > with
> > > > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on
> Wikimedia-L.
> > >  Did
> > > > > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > > > > .
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Affiliation in username

[Risker]

On 9 May 2014 13:30, Ryan Lane  wrote:

> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jared Zimmerman <
> jared.zimmer...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Affiliations change, and user names are quite difficult to change, this
> > sounds like something that would be good for a structured profile, not
> for
> > a user name.
> >
> >
> Indeed, or in the user preferences so that it could be accessed natively.
>
>
Whatever solution is proposed must accommodate the fact that the
affiliation at the time of the edit or other action must remain linked to
the edit or action, even if the affiliation changes at a subsequent time
(kind of like subst'ing templates).  Not sure this is possible through
preferences.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Nathan]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> See the comment by Pristurus<
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pristurus>
>  at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
>
> Regards,
> Jee
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> >
> > > Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it.
> > Comment
> > > there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if
> other
> > > interests. ;)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jee
> > >
> > >
>

Ah, thanks. Amazing how handy links are. I was a little surprised to see
that even on that talkpage, you asked people to move the discussion to yet
a different page. I asked that question because a debate on the merits
might be somewhat moot if the still was selected randomly or by software,
it's interesting to see that it wasn't.

In any case, Pristurus has a good point and one that it would be hard to
craft a policy around. Least astonishment is a useful principle, but it
doesn't beat out journalistic and/or educational value. Newspapers,
magazines, textbooks and other sources of educational material often pick
striking images of tragic or shocking circumstances. The point is precisely
to draw attention, to disrupt the consciousness of the viewer so that the
meaning behind the image and any accompanying material sinks in and the
message is imparted strongly. Good sources of knowledge do this rarely but
well; shock sites do it constantly and for no particular reason.

Many Pulitzer prize winning photographs feature dead people, people who
have been shot, dismembered, even people in the midst of burning alive.
They win prizes because they have extraordinary communicative power and
meaningfully illustrate very important subjects.  Would anyone truly argue
that such images should never be used on the main page of any project?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

See the comment by Pristurus
 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F

Regards,
Jee


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it.
> Comment
> > there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if other
> > interests. ;)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> >
> >
> >
> I don't think it was answered, it wasn't even asked.  My question isn't how
> the video was selected, it's how the *still* from the video was selected.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Affiliation in username

[Ryan Lane]

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jared Zimmerman <
jared.zimmer...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Affiliations change, and user names are quite difficult to change, this
> sounds like something that would be good for a structured profile, not for
> a user name.
>
>
Indeed, or in the user preferences so that it could be accessed natively.

- Ryan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Nathan]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it. Comment
> there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if other
> interests. ;)
>
> Regards,
> Jee
>
>
>
I don't think it was answered, it wasn't even asked.  My question isn't how
the video was selected, it's how the *still* from the video was selected.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it. Comment
there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if other
interests. ;)

Regards,
Jee


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, ENWP Pine 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but
> not
> > > with forking or moving the discussion to here.
> >
> >
> > I wish there was actually a discussion to fork. Both The_ed17 and I
> raised
> > it on the Main_page Talk and the Commons administrator's noticeboard,
> where
> > things of urgency are normally monitored. Silence. Crickets.
> >
> > If it comes to a choice of keeping images of emaciated concentration camp
> > corpses on the front page of a high profile Wikimedia project and raising
> > this issue on Wikimedia-L, I choose the latter.
> >
> > -Andrew
>
>
> Indeed. No need to beat around the bush here - the purpose of e-mailing
> this list was explicitly to canvass for more opinions, more participants.
> The policy on en.wp is of mixed usefulness, imho, and often abused to
> restrict the availability of useful input and illumination. It doesn't
> apply to this list or to Commons or Meta.
>
> On the actual topic - what's the base process for selecting a still from a
> featured video? Is it automatic once the video is selected? Does the user
> have to specify a particular frame?
>
> ~Nathan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Nathan]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but not
> > with forking or moving the discussion to here.
>
>
> I wish there was actually a discussion to fork. Both The_ed17 and I raised
> it on the Main_page Talk and the Commons administrator's noticeboard, where
> things of urgency are normally monitored. Silence. Crickets.
>
> If it comes to a choice of keeping images of emaciated concentration camp
> corpses on the front page of a high profile Wikimedia project and raising
> this issue on Wikimedia-L, I choose the latter.
>
> -Andrew


Indeed. No need to beat around the bush here - the purpose of e-mailing
this list was explicitly to canvass for more opinions, more participants.
The policy on en.wp is of mixed usefulness, imho, and often abused to
restrict the availability of useful input and illumination. It doesn't
apply to this list or to Commons or Meta.

On the actual topic - what's the base process for selecting a still from a
featured video? Is it automatic once the video is selected? Does the user
have to specify a particular frame?

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Andrew Lih]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

>
> I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but not
> with forking or moving the discussion to here.


I wish there was actually a discussion to fork. Both The_ed17 and I raised
it on the Main_page Talk and the Commons administrator's noticeboard, where
things of urgency are normally monitored. Silence. Crickets.

If it comes to a choice of keeping images of emaciated concentration camp
corpses on the front page of a high profile Wikimedia project and raising
this issue on Wikimedia-L, I choose the latter.

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Risker]

Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid a
potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]

If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
(WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."  The FDC can
explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it
desires.

Risker/Anne

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.&diff=0&oldid=8460331


On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek  wrote:

> Hi Risker,
>
> It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it out. I
> have corrected it in the assessment.
>
> Best,
> Kasia
>
>
> 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :
>
> > Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> > request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> > it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request,
> and
> > implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
> >
> > The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed
> any
> > assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
> >
> > The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC,
> and
> > > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
> request,
> > > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus
> true,
> > > although may sound misleading.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dj "pundit"
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely
> agree
> > > with
> > > > the assessment.
> > > >
> > > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it
> was
> > > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the
> introduction
> > to
> > > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
> > their
> > > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)
> to
> > do
> > > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
> consistent
> > > with
> > > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.
> >  Did
> > > > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > > > .
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > __
> > > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > > profesor zarządzania
> > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> > >
> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kasia Odrozek
> Vorstandsreferentin / Consultant to the Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. +49 (030) 219 158 260
> Mobil: +49 151 46752534
>
> http://wikimedia.de 
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsreg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Kasia Odrozek]

Hi Risker,

It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it out. I
have corrected it in the assessment.

Best,
Kasia


2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :

> Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request, and
> implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
>
> The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed any
> assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
>
> The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
>
>
>
>
> On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and
> > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request,
> > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true,
> > although may sound misleading.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dj "pundit"
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree
> > with
> > > the assessment.
> > >
> > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
> > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction
> to
> > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
> their
> > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to
> do
> > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent
> > with
> > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.
>  Did
> > > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > > .
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > __
> > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > profesor zarządzania
> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> >
> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Kasia Odrozek
Vorstandsreferentin / Consultant to the Executive Director

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 (030) 219 158 260
Mobil: +49 151 46752534

http://wikimedia.de 

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Risker]

Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request, and
implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.

The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed any
assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]

The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.

Risker/Anne



[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment




On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> hi,
>
> let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and
> not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request,
> and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true,
> although may sound misleading.
>
> best,
>
> dj "pundit"
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree
> with
> > the assessment.
> >
> > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
> > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction to
> > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their
> > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do
> > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent
> with
> > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.  Did
> > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > .
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> __
> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> profesor zarządzania
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi,

let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and
not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request,
and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true,
although may sound misleading.

best,

dj "pundit"


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree with
> the assessment.
>
> I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
> partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction to
> their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their
> own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do
> the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent with
> what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.  Did
> the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> .
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Risker]

Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree with
the assessment.

I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction to
their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their
own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do
the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent with
what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.  Did
the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?

Risker/Anne

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] May VisualEditor Office Hour

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, everyone.

I just wanted to let you know, so you could mark your calendars if
interested, that the May IRC office hour to discuss VisualEditor will be
held on Monday the 19th at 1800 UTC. (See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for time conversion links.)

The log will be posted on meta after the office hour completes. You'll find
it, along with logs for older office hours on the topic, at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:VisualEditor_office_hours_logs

Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for more
information on what office hours and how to join in.

Hope to see you there. :)

Thanks!

Maggie


-- 
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

[Stevie Benton]

Thank you! And of course, we're always keen to listen to suggestions and to
support volunteers in anything they would like to take forward.


On 9 May 2014 14:48, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Stevie Benton <
> stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles,
> > that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at
> > Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest charities. He's put together
> > the below message but isn't subscribed to this list so can't post. I am
> > posting on his behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions about this and
> > those I can't, I shall pass on to John.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > Stevie
> >
> > John's message:
> >
> > Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the world’s largest cancer research charity,
> > have just taken me on as Wikipedian in Residence until mid-December 2014
> > (4/5 part time).
> >
> >
> >
> > Parts of the plan for the role are very relevant to this thread.   We are
> > aiming to improve WP articles on cancer to ensure they are accurate,
> > up-to-date and accessible to the full range of WP’s readership, working
> > closely with the existing English WP medical editing community, many of
> > whom have already been supportive of the project.   With the medical
> > translation project also underway, this is great timing for us to improve
> > important content across large numbers of language versions.
> >
> >
> >
> > We will be able to draw upon the expertise of both the medical research
> > staff funded by CRUK (over 4000 in the UK) and the various kinds of staff
> > they have with professional expertise in writing for a range of
> audiences,
> > from patients to scientists ( their editorial
> > policy<
> >
> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/
> > >
> > ).
> >
> >
> >
> > We are also planning to do research with the public into what they think
> of
> > specific WP articles, perhaps before and after improvement, and into how
> > they use WP and other sites at the top of search pages when looking for
> > medical information on the internet.   There has been little research
> into
> > this area, and the results should be very useful in focusing the ways
> > medical content generally can be improved.
> >
> >
> >
> > The CRUK position is funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by
> > Wikimedia UK, and the budget includes an element for this research.  I
> will
> > be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_CRUK_John in this role
> (Usually
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod.  Until  early July I will
> also
> > continue my role (1/5) as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society,
> the
> > UK’s National Academy for the Sciences)
> >
> >
> >
> > John Byrne
>
>
>
> That's one project I was really glad to see Wikimedia UK supporting. More
> in that vein, please. :)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

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

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Stevie Benton <
stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles,
> that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at
> Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest charities. He's put together
> the below message but isn't subscribed to this list so can't post. I am
> posting on his behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions about this and
> those I can't, I shall pass on to John.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Stevie
>
> John's message:
>
> Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the world’s largest cancer research charity,
> have just taken me on as Wikipedian in Residence until mid-December 2014
> (4/5 part time).
>
>
>
> Parts of the plan for the role are very relevant to this thread.   We are
> aiming to improve WP articles on cancer to ensure they are accurate,
> up-to-date and accessible to the full range of WP’s readership, working
> closely with the existing English WP medical editing community, many of
> whom have already been supportive of the project.   With the medical
> translation project also underway, this is great timing for us to improve
> important content across large numbers of language versions.
>
>
>
> We will be able to draw upon the expertise of both the medical research
> staff funded by CRUK (over 4000 in the UK) and the various kinds of staff
> they have with professional expertise in writing for a range of audiences,
> from patients to scientists ( their editorial
> policy<
> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/
> >
> ).
>
>
>
> We are also planning to do research with the public into what they think of
> specific WP articles, perhaps before and after improvement, and into how
> they use WP and other sites at the top of search pages when looking for
> medical information on the internet.   There has been little research into
> this area, and the results should be very useful in focusing the ways
> medical content generally can be improved.
>
>
>
> The CRUK position is funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by
> Wikimedia UK, and the budget includes an element for this research.  I will
> be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_CRUK_John in this role (Usually
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod.  Until  early July I will also
> continue my role (1/5) as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the
> UK’s National Academy for the Sciences)
>
>
>
> John Byrne



That's one project I was really glad to see Wikimedia UK supporting. More
in that vein, please. :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David Gerard 
>
> > While acknowledging the likely truth of the flaws in scientific
> > knowledge production as it stands (single studies in medicine being
> > literally useless, as 80% are actually wrong) ... I think you'll have
> > a bit of an uphill battle attempting to enforce stronger standards in
> > Wikipedia than exist in the field itself. We could go to requiring all
> > medical sourced to be Cochrane-level studies of studies of studies,
>
> That actually is the current best practice for medical articles in English,
> I believe, and I think it's a good one:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS



Indeed so, and I agree it is a good idea.



> Sourcing to reviews when possible is particularly relevant for a field
> (like medicine) that has a well-established tradition of conducting and
> publishing systematic reviews -- but I find it a useful practice in lots of
> areas, on the theory that reviews are generally more helpful for someone
> trying to find out more about a topic.
>


This is of course part of the same scholarly system that I was referring to
earlier in this discussion.

Within Wikipedia, peer-reviewed publications and/or systematic reviews of
such studies are considered among the most valuable and high-quality
sources. They're a vital building block of the knowledge that Wikipedia
seeks to disseminate. We know that all human methods are imperfect; but
we're also agreed that the scholarly method is, by and large, superior to
other methods of knowledge production.

Now, when I suggested that the Foundation bring these established methods
to bear on Wikipedia itself, you (and one or two others) chimed in with
concerns about real and potential flaws of scholarly studies and the peer
review system. It seemed to me as though underlying these comments there
were some sense that, while scholarly methods were good to illuminate any
topic under the sun that Wikipedia writes about, they wouldn't be welcome
as a method to illuminate Wikipedia itself.

I am well aware of the various documented problems with peer review, and
its occasional failures. They haven't led Wikipedia to abandon its view
that, by and large, peer-reviewed studies are among the best sources
available. So I didn't think your raising problems with aspects of the
scholarly method was particularly germane to this discussion of content
quality studies. If we didn't believe in the scholarly method, we wouldn't
privilege its output in Wikipedia.



> Anthony: I hear you about veracity being particularly important in medical
> articles; and I don't mean to get us too far in the weeds about what
> quality means -- there's lots to do on lots of articles that I think would
> be pretty obvious quality improvement, including straight-up fact-checking.
>


I think any research programme evaluating the quality of Wikipedia content
should first and foremost focus on such basics: veracity and fact checking.


> > Given that the post that started this thread referenced medical content,
> > are you telling me that you think it would be useless to have qualified
> > medical experts reviewing Wikipedia's medical content, because the
process
> > would be "opaque, messy, prone to failure and doesn't always support
> > innovation"?


> No, that is not what I am saying; and leaping to that conclusion seems
like
> a rather pointy and bad-faith approach, which makes it just that much more
> of an effort to participate in this conversation -- if you want to have a
> dialog with other people, please try to be more generous in your
> assumptions.


I hope I have explained why I reacted the way I did. Your comments led me
to believe that you were simply not very keen on Wikipedia being subjected
to a test, using the most objective method available.


> What I was trying to say is that I don't think your implication that there
> is already a well-designed solution that will fix all our problems is
> correct -- both because it's difficult to apply peer review in this
> context, and because peer review has plenty of problems itself. I think
> blind-review quality studies can be useful, but I don't think they're a
> panacea, anymore than scholarly peer review is itself a panacea for making
> sure good scholarly work gets published.


There are well-established methods for assessing the quality of written
work. I should think that a team composed of both academics well-versed in
study design and statistics and Wikimedians familiar with Wikipedia content
would over time be able to come up with a methodology that produces good
results in assessing project content in various topic areas against the
Wikimedia vision.

Once the basic framework has been established, the academics concerned
should be given full intellectual freedom to assess the content as they see
fit.

I think such efforts would demonstrate leadership, and reflect well on the
Foundation.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

[Stevie Benton]

Hello everyone,

I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles,
that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at
Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest charities. He's put together
the below message but isn't subscribed to this list so can't post. I am
posting on his behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions about this and
those I can't, I shall pass on to John.

Thanks and regards,

Stevie

John's message:

Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the world’s largest cancer research charity,
have just taken me on as Wikipedian in Residence until mid-December 2014
(4/5 part time).



Parts of the plan for the role are very relevant to this thread.   We are
aiming to improve WP articles on cancer to ensure they are accurate,
up-to-date and accessible to the full range of WP’s readership, working
closely with the existing English WP medical editing community, many of
whom have already been supportive of the project.   With the medical
translation project also underway, this is great timing for us to improve
important content across large numbers of language versions.



We will be able to draw upon the expertise of both the medical research
staff funded by CRUK (over 4000 in the UK) and the various kinds of staff
they have with professional expertise in writing for a range of audiences,
from patients to scientists ( their editorial
policy
).



We are also planning to do research with the public into what they think of
specific WP articles, perhaps before and after improvement, and into how
they use WP and other sites at the top of search pages when looking for
medical information on the internet.   There has been little research into
this area, and the results should be very useful in focusing the ways
medical content generally can be improved.



The CRUK position is funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by
Wikimedia UK, and the budget includes an element for this research.  I will
be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_CRUK_John in this role (Usually
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod.  Until  early July I will also
continue my role (1/5) as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the
UK’s National Academy for the Sciences)



John Byrne


On 8 May 2014 22:43, edward  wrote:

> On 08/05/2014 22:29, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it
>>>
>> backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) -
> recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles,
> as the original goal was to use relevant topics for individual
> specialists.
>
>  Even this selective method didn't work as well as might be hoped,
>>>
>> because the mechanism of the study required a minimum level of content
> - the articles had to be substantial enough to be useful for a
> comparison, and of sufficient length and comparable scope in both sets
> of sources - which ruled out many of the initial selections.
>
>
> After it was published I emailed both the epic and the Oxford team to
> understand why they chose the articles they did. I was unable to get a
> satisfactory answer.
>
> The method of selecting the most notable philosopher-theologians from a
> certain period is a good one.  There is no reason it has to be random, so
> long as there is a clearly defined selection method. However, they were
> unable to explain why of the most notable subjects, they chose Aquinas and
> Anselm.  I suspect there was a selection bias, as those were the articles
> which 'looked' the best. (The ones on Ockham and Scotus were so obviously
> vandalised that even a novice would have spotted the problem).
>
> Even then, as I have already pointed out above, they missed the fact that
> the Anselm article was plagiarised from Britannica 1911, so that instead of
> comparing Britannica to Wikiepedia, they were comparing Britannica 2011
> with Britannica 1911.  And they missed some bad errors that had been
> introduced by Wikipedia editors when they attempted to modernise the old
> Britannica prose.
>
> To give a simple example that even Geni will have to concede is not
> 'subjectively wrong', the Wikipedia article on Anselm said
>
> "Anselm wrote many proofs within Monologion and Proslogion. In the first
> proof, Anselm relies on the ordinary grounds of realism, which coincide to
> some extent with the theory of Augustine."
>
> This is a mangled version of the B1911 which reads
>
> "This demonstration is the substance of the Monologion and Proslogion. In
> the first of these the proof rests on the ordinary grounds of realism"
>
> You see what went wrong?  'first of these' should refer to the first book,
> namely Monologion. But one editor removed ""This demonstration is the
> substance of the Monologion and Proslogion" as being too difficult for
> ordinary readers, leaving 'first of these'. Another editor came 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cracking Wikipedia

[Russavia]

Cometstyles, et al

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Comet styles  wrote:

> Well done Russ, hopefully we can get more government sites to release
> their images on a fully free licence...product placements aside, the
> goal for wikimedia Commons is to provide the best possible image
> available for use "freely" online and we should just focus on that..a
> good "cropping" can sometimes remove unwanted "adverts" from the
> background ;)v


Indeed, whilst we on our projects should concentrate on getting the best
possible photographs, we shouldn't be ignorant to the fact that often the
best photographs are taken by those who have a professional interest in
those subjects, and they have the budgets to be able to spend top dollar on
getting those photos.

We also shouldn't be ignorant of the fact that these companies obviously
have an interest that may not correspond to our own, but there is no reason
that we can't, and shouldn't, use that to the advantage of both us and
them. We just shouldn't make promises to them (i.e guaranteed placement)
that would be unethical for us to make. As you can see from the examples
I've provided, all we need to do is make the photographs available on
Commons, and natural editing will inevitably take place and the photos will
be put into use in the best places possible.

Having said that, I have now made contact with Pirelli, and am already
discussing with them the possibility of getting a large image release.

Cheers,

Russavia
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[ENWP Pine]

Hi Keegan,

I looked for equivalent Meta policies before posting the links to English 
Wikipedia. 

Canvassing is referenced on Meta and Commons although there is no page on Meta 
or Commons specifically describing a canvassing policy that I see. Perhaps 
there should be, since both wikis seem to have an unwritten rule against 
canvassing.

I believe I was clear that the RfC guidelines and the Drama essay are from 
English Wikipedia but I think they are the best practice to follow here, and 
that this is my opinion only.

I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but not with 
forking or moving the discussion to here.

Pine  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sue exit interview

[Jane Darnell]

done

2014-05-09 7:35 GMT+02:00, MZMcBride :
> Hi.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_exit_interview/Sue_Gardner is
> accepting questions until 23 May 2014, 12:01 UTC.
>
> Passing along institutional memory is important, so please participate!
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:04 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

>
> Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good
> points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other
> Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been
> handled differently [1].
>
> Pine
>
> [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama
> [3]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing


Hey Pine,

I'd disagree with you here. Canvassing, the Request for comment link,
drama...those are all English Wikipedia links. As noted in replies to this
post there seems to be a general lack of manpower on Commons to sort out
the process. The link you provide to the Commons discussion is, as you
framed it, "other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation
could have been handled differently." There are exactly two participants in
that discussion at this time.

If there is an internal need on Commons we should all know about it. I'm
certain there are those on this list who might have never participated on
Commons in this regard (if at all) to be inspired to help out with
editorial judgement based on Kevin's email.

I get to be the jerk that says "Not it!" after bringing it up, but really
it's because I'd be terrible at it :)

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[ENWP Pine]

I apologize for that formatting mess. Emails that look beautiful in my Hotmail 
editing window get mangled when I send them to lists, and this seems to happen 
on a regular basis. I'll try sending this again.

--


Hi Kevin,
 
My comment here expresses my personal opinion only.
 
I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate 
because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence 
and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being 
discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. 
Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the "Principle of 
Least Drama", it is best not to make "the same point in multiple places", as 
split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to 
more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this 
list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for 
Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write "a brief, neutral 
statement of the issue". In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not 
mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered 
canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this 
list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. 
 
Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, 
and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons 
contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled 
differently [1].
 
Pine
 
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing
                   
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[ENWP Pine]

Hi Kevin,

My comment here expresses my personal opinion only.

I
 understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate 
because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree
 of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to
notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, 
the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per 
the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the "Principle of Least 
Drama", it is best not to make "the same point in multiple
 places", as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and
 spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of 
discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow 
the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia 
[3] which ask users to write "a brief, neutral statement of the issue". In 
general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from 
anywhere else to this mailing list
could be considered 
canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this 
list
 but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. 

Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, 
and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons 
contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled 
differently [1].

Pine

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama
[3]
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,