Re: [Wikimedia-l] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Keegan Peterzell 
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Megan Hernandez 
wrote:

>
> If the description above is not working for you, please let us know at
> don...@wikimedia.org so we can follow up.
>

​Wait, I'm confused.

Fundraising /doesn't/ use Phabricator for bug reports, as Marc-Andre
suggested is the appropriate approach? Everyone else does; it's transparent
and allows for collaborative problem solving. Unless I'm reading it wrong,
Fundraising would prefer bug reports by email. That doesn't seem very
efficient. I'd imagine it'd be much easier to deal with one bug rather than
X emails. Please do correct me if I'm wrong here :)

If not, I highly recommend* Fundraising use Phabricator. It's great
software!​


​*Approximate value of this recommendation is nothing.​

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Risker 
On 31 December 2014 at 18:43, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Megan Hernandez  >
> wrote:
>
>
> > The blue banners at the top of the page do show up more than one time.
> If
> > you close these banners, you won't see anymore banners.
> >
>
> That's not my experience here. I've clicked the blue banner away at least
> three or four times this month. It keeps coming back.
>
>
I've had the same experience as Andreas - I have had to inactivate the
banners multiple times on every computer I use.  In fact, I've had banners
almost 90% of the time when I go to Wikipedia without logging in, cookies
or no cookies.

Frankly, I am increasingly of the belief that Fundraising has sounded a
klaxon alarm without any concern whatsoever about *next year*.  The fact
that the editorial community doesn't see the banners on a regular basis
anymore is the only thing that has kept the voices of the community quiet;
we tend not to complain too much about things we don't see.  Frankly, I'd
rather the fundraiser fell short of its goals (recognizing that there would
be other impacts within the organization) than continue the current
trajectory; I've had complaints from just about everyone who knows I edit
Wikipedia about the banners, including a handful who said they were "former
donors" who decided not to give this year because of how obnoxious the
banners were.   There's little doubt in my mind that more and more people
are blocking those banners already - the more annoying they get, the more
people block them, and the smaller the potential contribution pool.  We're
starting to chase our own tails here.

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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Andreas Kolbe 
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Megan Hernandez 
wrote:


> The blue banners at the top of the page do show up more than one time.  If
> you close these banners, you won't see anymore banners.
>

That's not my experience here. I've clicked the blue banner away at least
three or four times this month. It keeps coming back.

A.
___
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] ** DATE CHANGE ** Invitation to WMF December 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, January 15, 19:00 UTC

2014-12-31 Thread Praveena Maharaj 
Dear all,

The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on
Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 7:00 PM UTC (11 AM PST). Please note, on
this occasion, we are holding this meeting on the third Thursday in
January. We will resume holding the meetings on the first Thursday of
each month beginning in February 2015.

The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will
be broadcast as a live YouTube stream.

Each month at the metrics meeting, we will:

* Welcome recent hires
* Present reports/updates that are focused on a key theme or topic. The
theme for January's meeting is: Quality
* Engage in questions/discussions

Please review
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about how to participate.

We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.

Thank you and Happy New Year!

Praveena

-- 
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the VP of Product & Strategy and the VP of
Engineering
Wikimedia Foundation \\ www.wikimediafoundation.org
___
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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2014-12-31 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On 31 December 2014 at 10:10, Laurentius  wrote:

>> The WMF could be a DOI registrant

> It looks quite expensive indeed:

Yes, that would seem to be prohibitive (and unreasonably so).

Pity.

Does ARK:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archival_Resource_Key

have any benefits for us or our users?


Aside: I've reqeusted a "Name Assigning Authority Number" property for Wikidata:


https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Organization#Name_Assigning_Authority_Number

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread John 
David don't get your hopes up. Given the WMF's tendency to shove idiotic,
untested, and often unwanted software changes down the throats of users
this surprises you at all? Just take a look at how either VE or media
viewer where pushed out. It took the introduction of the super protect
right to ensure that the WMF's edicts are carried out regardless of how it
impacts users or their wishes.
On Dec 31, 2014 2:08 PM, "David Gerard"  wrote:

> On 31 December 2014 at 18:56, Megan Hernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > The large banner is set to only show up one time, regardless if a reader
> > closes the banner or not. Most readers are not seeing these banners
> > anymore.
> > The blue banners at the top of the page do show up more than one time.
> If
> > you close these banners, you won't see anymore banners.
>
>
> So Marc was wrong and this *is* deliberate behaviour?
>
>
> > If the description above is not working for you, please let us know at
> > don...@wikimedia.org so we can follow up.
>
>
> It completely fails ethics and makes people want to put our banners
> into AdBlockPlus, where a substantial proportion of the internet won't
> see them, so it's not really me, is it.
>
>
> > You may be noticing more banners because we have increased the traffic
> > today for a final year-end push.  Banners were running at limited traffic
> > the past two weeks.  The campaign will end today.
>
>
> Blatant stunts like this because it's the last day strikes me as
> utterly unethical behaviour, for what that's worth.
>
> Who coded this? Who approved this? Who thought this was a good decision to
> make?
>
>
> - 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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread David Gerard 
On 31 December 2014 at 18:56, Megan Hernandez  wrote:

> The large banner is set to only show up one time, regardless if a reader
> closes the banner or not. Most readers are not seeing these banners
> anymore.
> The blue banners at the top of the page do show up more than one time.  If
> you close these banners, you won't see anymore banners.


So Marc was wrong and this *is* deliberate behaviour?


> If the description above is not working for you, please let us know at
> don...@wikimedia.org so we can follow up.


It completely fails ethics and makes people want to put our banners
into AdBlockPlus, where a substantial proportion of the internet won't
see them, so it's not really me, is it.


> You may be noticing more banners because we have increased the traffic
> today for a final year-end push.  Banners were running at limited traffic
> the past two weeks.  The campaign will end today.


Blatant stunts like this because it's the last day strikes me as
utterly unethical behaviour, for what that's worth.

Who coded this? Who approved this? Who thought this was a good decision to make?


- 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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Megan Hernandez 
The large banner is set to only show up one time, regardless if a reader
closes the banner or not. Most readers are not seeing these banners
anymore.

The blue banners at the top of the page do show up more than one time.  If
you close these banners, you won't see anymore banners.

If the description above is not working for you, please let us know at
don...@wikimedia.org so we can follow up.

You may be noticing more banners because we have increased the traffic
today for a final year-end push.  Banners were running at limited traffic
the past two weeks.  The campaign will end today.

Happy New Year!

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 14-12-31 12:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 31 December 2014 at 17:18, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>>
>>> How have you determined that this is not simply a bug or coding error,
>>> exactly?
>>>
>>
>> It is true that I'm assuming bad faith here entirely on the basis of
>> the previous bad-faith behaviour.
>>
>
> Then - setting aside the propriety of your characterization of the
> fundraising team's past efforts - the correct thing to do would be to
> report the obnoxious returning banner as a bug (including enough
> information to help figure out its source) and at least wait for some
> indication that it may not have been one before casting aspersions on real
> peoples' ethics.  Treating others like mustache-twirling villains rarely
> ends up being productive.
>
> Assuming that it *is* a bug, getting it tracked down and fixed as quickly
> as possible so that it affects fewer people is the important thing; rage
> over the blunder may be cathartic but is not in fact useful.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 

Megan Hernandez

Director of Online Fundraising
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Marc A. Pelletier 

On 14-12-31 12:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:

On 31 December 2014 at 17:18, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

How have you determined that this is not simply a bug or coding error,
exactly?


It is true that I'm assuming bad faith here entirely on the basis of
the previous bad-faith behaviour.


Then - setting aside the propriety of your characterization of the 
fundraising team's past efforts - the correct thing to do would be to 
report the obnoxious returning banner as a bug (including enough 
information to help figure out its source) and at least wait for some 
indication that it may not have been one before casting aspersions on 
real peoples' ethics.  Treating others like mustache-twirling villains 
rarely ends up being productive.


Assuming that it *is* a bug, getting it tracked down and fixed as 
quickly as possible so that it affects fewer people is the important 
thing; rage over the blunder may be cathartic but is not in fact useful.


-- Marc


___
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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2014-12-31 Thread Andrew Gray 
My experience is that to create a DOI you need to provide a basic
level of metadata for each item rather than simply registering a
target URL - I'm not sure how curated this needs to be, and it can
probably be autogenerated, but there might be problems scaling it and
doing it on demand. There is also a short delay before they become
active at the central registry. (I've certainly seen cases where a
publisher has issued a DOI then announced it to the world before
CrossRef are able to resolve it, and it takes a day or two before the
DOI works...)

As a result, I don't think we could generate these on the fly and use
a URL-shortener type approach - there might be problems with
generating that many of them, and they would not reliably work at the
moment they're generated.

Andrew.

On 30 December 2014 at 21:53, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> Digital object identifiers are an international standard for document
> identification:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier
>
> The WMF could be a DOI registrant, and resolve DOIs in the form
> 10..Qn for Wikidata items, or, say, 10..en:609232908 for:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_King_of_Rome&oldid=609232908
>
> Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread David Gerard 
On 31 December 2014 at 17:18, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 14-12-31 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:

>> Really - some person has*knowingly*  coded this, considering this
>> ethical behaviour to put into code and release into the wild.

> How have you determined that this is not simply a bug or coding error,
> exactly?


It is true that I'm assuming bad faith here entirely on the basis of
the previous bad-faith behaviour.


- 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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Marc A. Pelletier 

On 14-12-31 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:

Really - some person has*knowingly*  coded this, considering this
ethical behaviour to put into code and release into the wild.


How have you determined that this is not simply a bug or coding error, 
exactly?


-- Marc


___
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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread David Gerard 
On 31 December 2014 at 16:37, Risker  wrote:

> It's not doing that for me (Canada, using an old IE browser). However, it
> IS ignoring my previously set "don't show me this again" cookie.



I just tested in Opera as well. First I got the HUGE OBNOXIOUS BANNER.
I dismissed this and went to another page ... and it popped up with
ANOTHER BANNER!

So, the current code is ignoring people dismissing the banner. Someone
has decided this is a good thing to do.

Really - some person has *knowingly* coded this, considering this
ethical behaviour to put into code and release into the wild. Who was
this person? Who signed off on this decision? What is the process by
which this decision was made?


- 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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread David Gerard 
Oh, apparently this happens *after* you've dismissed it - it COMES BACK.

The lucky victim is now asking how to add the fundraiser banner to AdBlock Plus.

Well done, guys.

(I posted this on my FB and I'm getting "HELL YES WHAT THE HELL ARE
THEY DOING THIS YEAR" comments from friends. But of course, that's
anecdotal and doesn't show up in metrics.)


On 31 December 2014 at 16:33, David Gerard  wrote:
> Really. Who thought it was a good idea to MAKE THE BANNER FOLLOW YOU
> DOWN THE PAGE?
>
> There must be an identifiable person who actually said "yes, this is a
> good decision, I shall make this decision."
>
>
> - 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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread Risker 
On 31 December 2014 at 11:33, David Gerard  wrote:

> Really. Who thought it was a good idea to MAKE THE BANNER FOLLOW YOU
> DOWN THE PAGE?
>
> There must be an identifiable person who actually said "yes, this is a
> good decision, I shall make this decision."
>
>
> - d.
>
>
It's not doing that for me (Canada, using an old IE browser). However, it
IS ignoring my previously set "don't show me this again" cookie.

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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2014-12-31 Thread David Gerard 
Really. Who thought it was a good idea to MAKE THE BANNER FOLLOW YOU
DOWN THE PAGE?

There must be an identifiable person who actually said "yes, this is a
good decision, I shall make this decision."


- 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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2014-12-31 Thread Laurentius 
Il giorno mer, 31/12/2014 alle 09.25 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) ha
scritto:
> Andy Mabbett, 30/12/2014 22:53:
> > Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this?
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfC looks ok *if* you have enough 
> information already. For instance, AFAIK DOI has a non-negligible cost 
> and Internet Archive uses ARK instead for this reason.
> Information on the financial cost would certainly inform the discussion 
> significantly, e.g. to decide whether it's worth it at all or whether to 
> use curid instead, in your example https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31445754

It looks quite expensive indeed:
http://www.medra.org/en/terms.htm

Laurentius


___
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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2014-12-31 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 

Andy Mabbett, 30/12/2014 22:53:

Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this?


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfC looks ok *if* you have enough 
information already. For instance, AFAIK DOI has a non-negligible cost 
and Internet Archive uses ARK instead for this reason.
Information on the financial cost would certainly inform the discussion 
significantly, e.g. to decide whether it's worth it at all or whether to 
use curid instead, in your example https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31445754


Nemo

___
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,