Re: [Wikimedia-l] 60 Minutes episode link

[Jane Darnell]

Yup - just watched it in the Netherlands, with lots of Viagra ads too!

It's a great piece and I hope it helps spread the message that Wikipedia is
a non-profit written by volunteers. One of the outcomes of the WMNL reader
and editor survey was that most of the Dutch public didn't know that
Wikipedia is a non-profit dependant on donations:
https://nl.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pdf&page=39

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:

> James, the restriction was only for on-air broadcast. I can watch the
> videos now (with a lot of Viagra ads :P)
> Thank you!
>
>
> 2015-04-06 0:52 GMT-05:00 James Alexander :
>
> > Ivan: I think we were told the link should be without country
> restrictions.
> > Do you get a 'not available in your country' type warning when you go?
> >
> > James Alexander
> > Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Ivan Martínez 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing Kevin. In countries like mine CBS is not available
> for
> > > free.
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > 2015-04-05 19:17 GMT-05:00 Kevin Rutherford :
> > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > >
> > > > Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that
> > > > Katherine mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on
> > the
> > > > side, and it lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when
> you
> > > have
> > > > a moment as it features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/
> > > >
> > > > Kevin Rutherford
> > > > Ktr101
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Iván Martínez*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
> > > @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
> > > *
> > >
> > > Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda
> a
> > > proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> > > https://donate.wikimedia.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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Iván Martínez*
>
>
>
> *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
> @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
> *
>
> Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
> proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> https://donate.wikimedia.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,
> 
___
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] 60 Minutes episode link

[Anthony Cole]

(I've got the Adblock Plus free add-on on Firefox/Windows 8 and it seems to
filter out the ads - as it does for YouTube.)

Anthony Cole 


On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:

> James, the restriction was only for on-air broadcast. I can watch the
> videos now (with a lot of Viagra ads :P)
> Thank you!
>
>
> 2015-04-06 0:52 GMT-05:00 James Alexander :
>
> > Ivan: I think we were told the link should be without country
> restrictions.
> > Do you get a 'not available in your country' type warning when you go?
> >
> > James Alexander
> > Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Ivan Martínez 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing Kevin. In countries like mine CBS is not available
> for
> > > free.
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > 2015-04-05 19:17 GMT-05:00 Kevin Rutherford :
> > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > >
> > > > Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that
> > > > Katherine mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on
> > the
> > > > side, and it lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when
> you
> > > have
> > > > a moment as it features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/
> > > >
> > > > Kevin Rutherford
> > > > Ktr101
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Iván Martínez*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
> > > @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
> > > *
> > >
> > > Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda
> a
> > > proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> > > https://donate.wikimedia.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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Iván Martínez*
>
>
>
> *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
> @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
> *
>
> Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
> proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> https://donate.wikimedia.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,
> 
>
___
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] 60 Minutes episode link

[Ivan Martínez]

James, the restriction was only for on-air broadcast. I can watch the
videos now (with a lot of Viagra ads :P)
Thank you!


2015-04-06 0:52 GMT-05:00 James Alexander :

> Ivan: I think we were told the link should be without country restrictions.
> Do you get a 'not available in your country' type warning when you go?
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for sharing Kevin. In countries like mine CBS is not available for
> > free.
> > Regards,
> >
> > 2015-04-05 19:17 GMT-05:00 Kevin Rutherford :
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that
> > > Katherine mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on
> the
> > > side, and it lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when you
> > have
> > > a moment as it features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania:
> > >
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/
> > >
> > > Kevin Rutherford
> > > Ktr101
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Iván Martínez*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
> > @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
> > *
> >
> > Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
> > proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> > https://donate.wikimedia.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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
*Iván Martínez*



*Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
@protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
*

Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
https://donate.wikimedia.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] 60 Minutes episode link

[James Alexander]

Ivan: I think we were told the link should be without country restrictions.
Do you get a 'not available in your country' type warning when you go?

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:

> Thanks for sharing Kevin. In countries like mine CBS is not available for
> free.
> Regards,
>
> 2015-04-05 19:17 GMT-05:00 Kevin Rutherford :
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that
> > Katherine mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on the
> > side, and it lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when you
> have
> > a moment as it features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania:
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/
> >
> > Kevin Rutherford
> > Ktr101
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Iván Martínez*
>
>
>
> *Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
> @protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
> *
>
> Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
> proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> https://donate.wikimedia.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,
> 
>
___
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] 60 Minutes episode link

[Ivan Martínez]

Thanks for sharing Kevin. In countries like mine CBS is not available for
free.
Regards,

2015-04-05 19:17 GMT-05:00 Kevin Rutherford :

> Hey all,
>
> Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that
> Katherine mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on the
> side, and it lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when you have
> a moment as it features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/
>
> Kevin Rutherford
> Ktr101
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
*Iván Martínez*



*Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
@protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
*

Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
https://donate.wikimedia.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, 

[Wikimedia-l] 60 Minutes episode link

[Kevin Rutherford]

Hey all,

Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that Katherine 
mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on the side, and it 
lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when you have a moment as it 
features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania: 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/

Kevin Rutherford
Ktr101
___
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] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Josh Lim wrote:
>In the absence of any meaningful alternative, what should we do then?  
>Close down Wikipedia Zero and let the developing world languish in the 
>dark?

Technically it would be entirely possible for service providers to offer
access to Wikipedia "for free" even if the Wikimedia Foundation and the
Wikipedia community objects to that on net neutrality or other grounds.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de

___
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] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17

[Lilburne]

On 05/04/2015 14:13, Mike Godwin wrote:

Lilburne writes:

"> My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well

as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,

"Those will all be Google shills correct?"

Incorrect. My work, and EFF's work, to take two example, predate
Google's involvement in public policy by 15 years.


Really! Seems that the EFF et al have been shilling for tech 
corporations at the expense
of consumers for about 15 years or so. The others from the day before 
they formed.




I understand that for "keyboard cowboys" it may be hard to understand
that mere agreement with a corporation some of the time does not equal
being a "shill" and does not entail agreeing with a corporation all
the time. But those of us who actually do activism and public policy
work know who we are and why we do it.


Its not a case of 'sometimes' its nigh on all the time. You'd be more 
accurate to list the
dozen or so times in the last 15 years when the EFF hasn't played drum 
major to corporate

tech, beating out a voodoo rhythm  to entrance the unwary.


In those contexts, I've never heard of you before. Tell us more about
your activism and public-policy work!



Well one thing I don't need to go about name dropping to justify my words.



___
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] Request

[Pete Forsyth]

There has been a protracted thread in the last couple of days that seems to
amount to an escalating ego battle among 2-3 participants. I could be
wrong, but I don't think this has much interest beyond those 2-3
individuals.

I'd like to request that the participants or the list moderators take steps
to move this discussion off list.
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] [US media] Wikimedia on US television program 60 Minutes tonight

[Pine W]

Excellent, thanks Katherine. I'll check the 60 Minutes segment to see if
they have ideas that I can reuse for the video productions that some of us
are working on this year. It sounds like their intended audience is
different, more aimed at educating readers than educating potential editors
or researchers, so it remains to be seen how much overlap there will be. I
look forward to watching the episode.

Pine
On Apr 5, 2015 4:17 AM, "Katherine Maher"  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> For the past year, the US television program* 60 Minutes*[1] has been
> working on a segment on Wikimedia. We learned that it will air today
> Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST, and will be available for streaming on
> the* 60** Minutes* website (http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/),
> reportedly
> without any geo IP restrictions, shortly after it airs.
>
> We wanted to let you know in case you are interested in watching. *60
> Minutes *doesn't allow subjects to preview their scripts, but here's what
> we expect:
>
> *BASICS*
>
> Title: "Wikimania"
> Host: Morley Safer
> Length: 13-17 minutes
> Audience: ~12 million, US, general interest, mature audience.
> Time: Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST
> Availability: Streaming at the* 60** Minutes*/site shortly after airdate;
> no geo IP restrictions
>
> *THEMES*
>
> *60** Minutes* prides itself in making complicated realities easily
> understandable. It will be a high-level introduction for a general
> audience, and may even seem simplistic for a community member.
>
> We expect the segment to be positive, focusing on how Wikipedia is created
> by volunteers from all over the world, and emphasizing how unusual the
> projects are. In terms of negatives, the feature may include some stale
> stereotypes about Wikimedians as socially awkward, the gender gap, and
> inaccuracies.
>
> The segment will feature:
>
>
>- Interviews with Jimmy, Sue, and Lila
>- A short profile of Jimmy as founder.
>- Storytelling from Wikimania London.
>- Examples of people involved with Wikipedia including: Dumi Ndubane and
>Bobby Shabangu of Wikimedia ZA; Dorothy Howard leading a GLAM editathon
> at
>the Frick museum in NY; and an interview with NYC Wikipedian Amanda
>Levendowski.
>- Notable facts and figures about Wikipedia, its global popularity,
>depth, and user support.
>
> You can currently find preview clips here:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/
>
> Thanks to everyone for your support and participation!
>
> Katherine
>
> [1] *60 Minutes* is one of the most popular television shows in the Unites
> States, reaching an audience of as many as 15 million people each week.
> Morley Safer, the journalist, is one of the best known hosts.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_Safer
> --
> Katherine Maher
> Chief Communications Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.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,
> 
___
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] Regarding knowledge

[Anders Wennersten]

For medical articles we at svwp are very wary as there exist very good 
webpages issued by the health authorities related to all healthproblems 
and we certainly do not want our wp pages to contradict those.


We encountered severe problems when the English(American) articles were 
first introduced at svwp, as their recommendation differed from what is 
recommended here. For example when you have an urinary tract infection, 
it is here often not treated at all here, as bacteria is seen as normal, 
not to be taken away. But the big problem was he different 
recommendation of use of antibiotics and penicillin, which are 
prescribed much more restricted here then in US.


In our case we came to a proper article but only after long discussion, 
and most of us are laymen in medicin, so not able to check as closely 
all articles. And actually we at svwp are quite happy that the webpages 
from the authorities on health is ranked higher then our pages, at least 
when articles have sections around treatment and recommended prescriptions.


Anders







Oliver Keyes skrev den 2015-04-05 19:36:

Has there been work to determine the accuracy of our medical coverage
that's found it lacking? All the studies I've seen have said it's
pretty good, but that was a while ago, and I know anecdotally that
we've got a lot of work to do around, for example, womens' health
issues.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

(I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete
that earlier version?)

"Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and
everybody uses it."  — Freeman Dyson, "How We Know" The New York Review of
Books, 10 March 2011.

(Discussing recent UK survey results.) "We're trusted slightly more than
the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all
know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could
do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20
points ahead of us." — Jimmy Wales, "State of the Wiki" Wikimania speech,
10 August 2014.

The Wikimedia Foundation vision:  "Imagine a world in which every single
human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our
commitment."

But "knowledge" of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While
Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge.
This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its
vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust.

It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is
factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already
stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its "knowledge graph".
Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from
(often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on
page two.

The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action
[3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading "Focus on
knowledge & community" is "Improve our measures of community health and
content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives.

The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is
reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an
important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose
purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic
initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people
can trust?*

Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to
measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no
resources were allocated and it did not happen.

1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 "Google wants to rank websites based on
facts not links" New Scientist
2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 "Google's fact-checking bots build vast
knowledge bank" New Scientist
3.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action
4.
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality

Anthony Cole 
___
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 mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge

[Oliver Keyes]

Has there been work to determine the accuracy of our medical coverage
that's found it lacking? All the studies I've seen have said it's
pretty good, but that was a while ago, and I know anecdotally that
we've got a lot of work to do around, for example, womens' health
issues.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> (I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete
> that earlier version?)
>
> "Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and
> everybody uses it."  — Freeman Dyson, "How We Know" The New York Review of
> Books, 10 March 2011.
>
> (Discussing recent UK survey results.) "We're trusted slightly more than
> the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all
> know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could
> do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20
> points ahead of us." — Jimmy Wales, "State of the Wiki" Wikimania speech,
> 10 August 2014.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation vision:  "Imagine a world in which every single
> human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our
> commitment."
>
> But "knowledge" of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While
> Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge.
> This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its
> vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust.
>
> It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is
> factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already
> stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its "knowledge graph".
> Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from
> (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on
> page two.
>
> The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action
> [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading "Focus on
> knowledge & community" is "Improve our measures of community health and
> content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives.
>
> The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is
> reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an
> important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose
> purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic
> initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people
> can trust?*
>
> Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to
> measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no
> resources were allocated and it did not happen.
>
> 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 "Google wants to rank websites based on
> facts not links" New Scientist
> 2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 "Google's fact-checking bots build vast
> knowledge bank" New Scientist
> 3.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action
> 4.
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality
>
> Anthony Cole 
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17

[Mike Godwin]

Lilburne writes:

"> My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well
> as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,

"Those will all be Google shills correct?"

Incorrect. My work, and EFF's work, to take two example, predate
Google's involvement in public policy by 15 years.

I understand that for "keyboard cowboys" it may be hard to understand
that mere agreement with a corporation some of the time does not equal
being a "shill" and does not entail agreeing with a corporation all
the time. But those of us who actually do activism and public policy
work know who we are and why we do it.

In those contexts, I've never heard of you before. Tell us more about
your activism and public-policy work!



--Mike





On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:42 AM,
 wrote:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>   Strategic Partnerships (Cristian Consonni)
>2. Call for Election Committee candidates (Alice Wiegand)
>3. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>   Strategic Partnerships (Anthony Cole)
>4. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>   Strategic Partnerships (Gerard Meijssen)
>5. Re: Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize! (Lila Tretikov)
>6. Re: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>   Strategic Partnerships (Lilburne)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 19:44:21 +0200
> From: Cristian Consonni 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice
> President of Strategic Partnerships
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
>> As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
>> Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero
>> and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in
>> the following countries:
>
> I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
> question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
> making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
> It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
> is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
> this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
> the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
> Facebook Zero.
>
> [...]
>
>> Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
>> Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
>> articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
>
> This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
>
>> Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
>> fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
>> Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
>> Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
>> also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
>> impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
>> be a Facebook experience to them.
>
> I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.
>
> This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
> to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
> content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
> reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
> reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
> for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
> strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
> to do this.
>
> Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
> space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
> Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
> services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
> and universities websites) should always be 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

Boi,

All comparisons of WP with other sources were cherry picked. They picked 
articles where
the science was well established, or they picked articles which were 
being edit warred to
exhaustion if you know of comparisons where that isn't the case then 
cough them up.


Wikipedia happens to figure high in Google search rankings. That is the 
only reliable relevance that
it has to any subject. Often its high ranking is to the detriment of far 
more reliable sites. Richard II
king of England in 1345 - three years that resided in a feature article. 
Thomas Rainsborough the
noted Ranter a year. Jagged85 years and years falsifying articles in 
History, Medicine,
Mathematics, and Literature, and allowed to carry on doing so for 
several years after discovery.

Much of his nonsense remains.

Ignoring the millions of "X is a footballer in the 6th division of the Y 
league", "X is a moth in the
Y family", "X is a village of 50 people in the region of Y" type 
articles. Most of the rest are like
John Dee. An unreadable hodge-podge of 'maybe facts' culled from ancient 
sources, and mangled
into nonsense to avoid charges of plagiarism. Article that give as much 
weight to gossip and
sensation as they do to achievements. Lets try "Alfred Gilbert" where 
the pursuit of gossip has

lost the actual story of his life.


On 05/04/2015 12:07, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic 
either. The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and 
compared those in several sources... Then again why bore you with 
information you already could know..


Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" 
your point, it however fails to convince.


Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant 
source. Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an 
opportunity for you. You claim to know the subject matter.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne > wrote:


On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.


One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the
sources.


Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.


Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of
well established scientific
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
disputed content.
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are
neither of the above.

Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a
rambling mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural
philospher, but is thwarted
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the
magician and conjuror.

Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a
close run thing, and
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
processes to
get there.

Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the
magician are instead
promoting Dee the mathematician.

I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of
breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.


God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on
the first page of a
search engine's results.



___
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,
?subject=unsubscribe>




___
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Craig Franklin]

Hello,

Might I suggest that if folks want to continue talking about this, they
rename this thread, as it is no longer about Kourosh Karimkhany, and it is
just creating background noise for those of us who have no desire to
discuss the whole Wikipedia Zero freedom thing yet again?

Cheers,
Craig

On 5 April 2015 at 21:07, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic either.
> The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and compared those in
> several sources... Then again why bore you with information you already
> could know..
>
> Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" your
> point, it however fails to convince.
>
> Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant source.
> Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an opportunity
> for you. You claim to know the subject matter.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne  wrote:
>
> > On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
> >> encyclopaedia. It is not original research.
> >>
> >>
> > One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.
> >
> >
> >  Studies have indicated that
> >> Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.
> >>
> >
> > Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well
> > established scientific
> > knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
> > disputed content.
> > It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither of
> > the above.
> >
> > Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica article.
> > The Britannica
> > article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling
> > mess that tries
> > to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but
> is
> > thwarted
> > at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician and
> > conjuror.
> >
> > Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
> > thing, and
> > one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
> > processes to
> > get there.
> >
> > Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician
> are
> > instead
> > promoting Dee the mathematician.
> >
> >  I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed,
> >> people
> >> do care about Wikipedia Zero.
> >>
> >
> > God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
> > informative and reliable
> > sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the
> first
> > page of a
> > search engine's results.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 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] [US media] Wikimedia on US television program 60 Minutes tonight

[Katherine Maher]

Hi everyone,

For the past year, the US television program* 60 Minutes*[1] has been
working on a segment on Wikimedia. We learned that it will air today
Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST, and will be available for streaming on
the* 60** Minutes* website (http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/), reportedly
without any geo IP restrictions, shortly after it airs.

We wanted to let you know in case you are interested in watching. *60
Minutes *doesn't allow subjects to preview their scripts, but here's what
we expect:

*BASICS*

Title: "Wikimania"
Host: Morley Safer
Length: 13-17 minutes
Audience: ~12 million, US, general interest, mature audience.
Time: Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST
Availability: Streaming at the* 60** Minutes*/site shortly after airdate;
no geo IP restrictions

*THEMES*

*60** Minutes* prides itself in making complicated realities easily
understandable. It will be a high-level introduction for a general
audience, and may even seem simplistic for a community member.

We expect the segment to be positive, focusing on how Wikipedia is created
by volunteers from all over the world, and emphasizing how unusual the
projects are. In terms of negatives, the feature may include some stale
stereotypes about Wikimedians as socially awkward, the gender gap, and
inaccuracies.

The segment will feature:


   - Interviews with Jimmy, Sue, and Lila
   - A short profile of Jimmy as founder.
   - Storytelling from Wikimania London.
   - Examples of people involved with Wikipedia including: Dumi Ndubane and
   Bobby Shabangu of Wikimedia ZA; Dorothy Howard leading a GLAM editathon at
   the Frick museum in NY; and an interview with NYC Wikipedian Amanda
   Levendowski.
   - Notable facts and figures about Wikipedia, its global popularity,
   depth, and user support.

You can currently find preview clips here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/

Thanks to everyone for your support and participation!

Katherine

[1] *60 Minutes* is one of the most popular television shows in the Unites
States, reaching an audience of as many as 15 million people each week.
Morley Safer, the journalist, is one of the best known hosts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_Safer
-- 
Katherine Maher
Chief Communications Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic either.
The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and compared those in
several sources... Then again why bore you with information you already
could know..

Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" your
point, it however fails to convince.

Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant source.
Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an opportunity
for you. You claim to know the subject matter.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne  wrote:

> On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
>> encyclopaedia. It is not original research.
>>
>>
> One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.
>
>
>  Studies have indicated that
>> Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well
> established scientific
> knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
> disputed content.
> It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither of
> the above.
>
> Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica article.
> The Britannica
> article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling
> mess that tries
> to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but is
> thwarted
> at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician and
> conjuror.
>
> Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
> thing, and
> one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
> processes to
> get there.
>
> Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician are
> instead
> promoting Dee the mathematician.
>
>  I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed,
>> people
>> do care about Wikipedia Zero.
>>
>
> God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
> informative and reliable
> sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the first
> page of a
> search engine's results.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.



One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.



Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.


Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well 
established scientific
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly 
disputed content.
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither 
of the above.


Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica 
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling 
mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but 
is thwarted
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician 
and conjuror.


Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run 
thing, and
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought 
processes to

get there.

Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician 
are instead

promoting Dee the mathematician.


I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.


God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more 
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the 
first page of a

search engine's results.


___
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] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

On 02/04/2015 02:54, Mike Godwin wrote:

Andreas writes:

"Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very
strongly disagree with your view."

I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces.
That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts.

Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time
to be someone "prominent" whose entire career has been dedicated to a
free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even
everyone "prominent" -- who believes in a free and open web "very
strongly" disagrees with me, then you are misinformed.


No we think that there are relationships between faux advocacy and what 
benefits large
multinational tech corporations to the detriment of everyone else. That 
we do not see
'citizen advocacy' groups speak out against the rape of privacy that 
online web operators
engage in, that they speak mainly of governments who by and large 
out-source the

surveillance to private companies.

For example did the EFF speak out about Google using "Apps for 
Education" to profile kids?

No totally silent on the vile behavour of its pay master:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/30/google-stops-data-mining-students-email/



There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs
first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed,
industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the
infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who
imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to "a free
and open web.


That "free and open" is bullshit for the entrenchment of the status quo. 
That Government
turned a blind eye to the abuses in the early days, effectively allowing 
monopolies to become

established and that it about time that they reigned the bastards back.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/01/modernise_safe_harbour_for_the_tech_oligarch_era_mike_weatherley/



I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be
publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link
here when I have it.

Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a
"prominent organization" that has committed itself to "a free and open
web" is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But
I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know
the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long
(400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you
actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the
comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused
to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted
here.


Yeah we heard that. That despite all the supposed brouhaha
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-internet-google-idUSKBN0L91E420150205

The FCC came out in favour of - GOOGLE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/

I gather that a recent FTC report is being investigated by a Senate that 
is waking up to the fiddling

that is going on
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/03/senate_to_probe_obamagoogle_lovein/


My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well
as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,


Those will all be Google shills correct?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/10/sopa_copyright_voluntary_agreements_hollywood_lobbyists_are_like_exes_who.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

In effect it is becoming clearer and clearer that the later day robber 
barons, their supporters
and fellow travellers need a clear lessons in citizenship. That the rule 
of law is catching up.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/index.html



___
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] Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize!

[Lila Tretikov]

All,

As Tim mentioned we are seriously looking at
privacy/identity/security/anonymity issues, specifically as it pertains to
IP address exposure -- both from legal and technical standpoint. This won't
happen overnight as we need to get people to work on this and there are a
lot of asks, but this is on our radar.

On a related note, let's skip the sarcasm and treat each other with
straightforward honestly. And for non-English speakers -- who are also (if
not more) in need of this -- sarcasm can be very confusing.

Thanks,
Lila

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> 2015-03-30 0:25 GMT+02:00 Brian :
> > Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize was to design a
> > collaborative filtering algorithm, it became notorious when the data was
> > used to de-anonymize Netflix users. Researchers proved that given just a
> > user's movie ratings on one site, you can plug those ratings into another
> > site, such as the IMDB. You can then take that information, and with some
> > Google searches and optionally a bit of cash (for websites that sell user
> > information, including, in some cases, their SSN) figure out who they
> are.
> > You could even drive up to their house and take a selfie with them, or
> > follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views
> on
> > the topics they were editing.
>
> somewhat tangentially, and to bring back this to topic to a more
> scientific setting I would like to point out that there has already
> been reasearch in the past on this topic.
>
> I highly recommend reading the following paper:
>
> Lieberman, Michael D., and Jimmy Lin. "You Are Where You Edit:
> Locating Wikipedia Contributors through Edit Histories." ICWSM. 2009.
> (PDF <
> http://www.pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/syllabi/infx598_wi12/papers/wikipedia/lieberman-lin.YouAreWhereYouEdit.ICWSM09.pdf
> >)
>
> For those of you that don't want to read the whole paper, you can find
> a recap of the most relevant findings in this presentation by Maurizio
> Napolitano:
> <
> http://www.slideshare.net/napo/social-geography-wikipedia-a-quick-overwiew
> >
>
> The main idea is associating spatial coordinates to a Wikipedia
> articles when possible, this articles are called "geopages". Then you
> extract from the history of articles the users which have edited a
> geopage. If you plot the geopages edited by a given contributor you
> can see that they tend to cluster, so you can define an "edit area".
> The study finds that 30-35% of contributors concentrate their edits in
> an edit area smaller than 1 deg^2 (~12,362 km^2, approximately the
> area of Connecticut or Northern Ireland[1] (thanks, Wikipedia!)).
>
> For another free/libre project with a geographic focus like
> OpenStreetMap this is even more marked, check out for example this
> tool «“Your OSM Heat Map” (aka Where did you contribute?)»[2] by
> Pascal Neis.
>
> This, of course, is not a straightforward de-anonimization but this
> methods work in principle for every contributor even if you obfuscate
> their IP or username (provided that you can still assign all the edits
> from a given user to a unique and univocal identifier)
>
> C
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_degree
> [2a] http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/
> [2b] http://neis-one.org/2011/08/yosmhm/
>
> ___
> 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,