Re: [Wikimedia-l] Joint office Jakarta - Wikimedia Indonesia, HOT Open Street Map, and World Wide Web Foundation

2014-06-28 Thread Isabella Apriyana
Hi Pine,

We'd be happy to share about our collaboration with HOT-OSM here in


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Pine W wrote:

 Thanks Isabella. I might want to talk with you or someone else at Wikimedia
 Indonesia about the relationship of the chapter to OpenStreetMap more in
 the future. OpenStreetMap is active in what I am hoping will become
 Wikimedia Cascadia territory and we have already made first contact with
 one of the OSM organizers. It might also be nice to hear from WMF about how
 their plans for improving mapping functions in the next fiscal year could
 tie into work with OpenStreetMap. Maybe someone could organize an office
 hour about the roadmap for location tools. I'm also sending this email to
 Quim Gil to see if an office hour is feasible.


 On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Isabella Apriyana wrote:

  Hi Pine,
  Every organization has their own administrative staff. WMID only has
  project-based paid staff and the rest are volunteers, while other
  organizations have full time paid-staff. While for programs, WMID and
  HOT-OSM just recently secured a grant from Make All Voices Count [1] to
  conduct local open content mapping and encyclopedia writing in
  a generally remote and underdeveloped area in Indonesia.
  On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Pine W wrote:
   Oh, I like hearing about collaborations like this! We are working on
   collaborations with other open source groups here in United States
   also. (The existence of our Cascadia group is pending approval from
   In addition to sharing a building, are you sharing administrative staff
   other resources? What programmatic collaborations are you developing?
   On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Nurunnaby Chowdhury
​ Wikimedia Indonesia!
Nurunnaby Chowdhury | @nhasive
Sysop, Bengali Wikipedia | User: Nhasive
Member, IEG, WMF
Sent from my iPhone device​
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Cristian Consonni
 2014-06-23 13:28 GMT+02:00 Tonmoy Khan
  Congratulations to WMID. Wish you do wonderful activities from
  address :)

 Go WM-ID! Go!



 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  *Isabella Apriyana*
  *Wakil Sekretaris Jendral*
  *(Deputy Secretary General)Wikimedia Indonesia*
  Seluler +628889752858/ +6281213700084
  Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan!
  Support us to free the knowledge!
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

*Isabella Apriyana*
*Wakil Sekretaris Jendral*

*(Deputy Secretary General)Wikimedia Indonesia*
Seluler +628889752858/ +6281213700084

Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan!


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-28 Thread Seb35
Similarly to what you are describing, Micru, BeWelcome has a process to  
identify issues and resolve them in a community discussion. It’s a sort of  
communal product specification/design.

The process looks like: [1]
1/ firstly, community members can submit issues or product ideas,
2/ secondly, there is a discussion with proposed resolutions,
3/ thirdly, a vote between the various proposed resolutions,
4/ lastly, the development phase itself.

Although we have some sort of such process (Idea lab, RFC, mailing lists,  
bug tracker,, it’s not as easy to find where are the ideas  
of products, where are the development of these ideas, and where and how  
you can give your voice to influence the path of the development.

Personally I like a lot the BeWelcome process (and it’s a non-technical  
member who presented me that), and I find you could reuse it in Wikimedia,  
probably in a customized form, and with short and intuitive product ideas  
and resolutions (avoid too long pages at first sight).


~ Seb35

Le mardi 26 juin 2014 15:12:03 (CEST), David Cuenca a écrit :
Erik (and others), is there any coordination page where groups could  
take, or discuss requests for development or requests for  

I saw often that sometimes the hard-to-achieve consensus is found, but
there is no way to evaluate the idea further. What now happens is:
- several development proposals materialize through different channels
(community, user groups, idea lab, RFCs, etc)
- there is a general consensus about project A
- limbo or an IEG, but as Ilario says, that doesn't guarantee its
future viability or integration with current or planned workflows, or
availability of resources for maintenance

It would be more rational to have a further step in the pipeline where
development ideas could be commented, shot down, or approved for  

commitment by the ones who actually can understand how they fit in the
broader product management/life-cycle context (engineering? PMs?
There are often community ideas that on first sight look great, but when
you think about the potential problems, implications, costs, or stepping  
the toes of other developments, that it is more rational not to start  
or delay them until certain conditions are met. But no voice is heard,  
that causes frustration and a sense of disconnection in the community,  

just a single statement this shouldn't be done because X, would make
everyone more aware of the limits.
And the opposite too, when some idea gather community support and is
green-lighted for further commitment, that would make chapters or other
organizations more confident about what is wanted and how.


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:

Hi folks,

At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on

My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
movement would be appropriate.

I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
it. I do want WMF 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-28 Thread Erik Moeller
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

 So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
 and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
 minute by minute?

Hi Pete,

I would generally advocate for the following:

- more emphasis on education and positive communication in cases of
good faith, constructive behavior;
- more tolerance for ambiguity regarding files in the collection (e.g.
when the legal situation is truly ambiguous), and more use of tagging
over deletion;
- software which supports all of the above effectively.

Some of this is easier to act on. For example, the threshold at which
we decide to delete (rather than wait, or tag) is one which we can
modify. The templates we use for communication purposes are easy to
edit to be friendly or specific. Software is slower to build, but we
should definitely keep in mind what the ideal curation tools should
look like, as well, so we can plan on where we situate it in the
longer term roadmap of development efforts.

I do believe, though, that a lot of this conversation should ideally
take place on Wikimedia Commons itself. These types of threads
illustrate that there's a lot of real frustration in the larger
community today. I would encourage folks who want to see Commons
become a friendlier, more positive environment to not give up, but to
advocate for changes to practices and policies on Commons itself,
including in deletion discussions and policy debates. I don't think
setting up a new site is likely to be the answer, though if someone
wants to draft a clearer proposal for how such a site would work, this
list is certainly one appropriate forum to discuss it.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: