Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
Since Wikimania is in July this year, perhaps we could do this there: public review discussion of the WMF plan, and using that as a point of departure to continue the discussion of planning from WMCON. Sam I would suggest not using this WMF proposed plan as a starting point for talking about good annual plans with affiliates, both because of its scale which is out of scope for any other affiliate, and because of the issues and regressions with the WMF plan and process that we've already discussed in this thread. I think it would be best to proceed on two tracks, the first being discussions about good planning practices and development of peer supports and tools for affiliates as we develop our plans, and a second track about WMF's plan. I like Risker's idea of having an outside professional review of WMF's plan with community and affiliate input, with the caveat that I have often had reason to think that consultants do subpar work (even those consultsnts with expensive brand names), so the consultant will need to be selected with great care. I think that a peer review from another public service organization might be a good option. Regarding Risker's point about WMF's plan lacking a sense of direction, I am hoping that the strategic planning process will help with this, though I must say that the WMF strategic planning process has been opaque from my perspective, and therefore I am wary about its potential. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
Just a clarification on numbers In James (internal) table enwps share of total number of eligible votes is 35,4% Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all 9,5%. If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest stands at 10,2% Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of total eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does not change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been lower then from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl rates being a little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and ja much below) Anders Milos Rancic skrev den 2015-06-01 09:48: So, there are two good news and one bad. The most important good one is that efforts made by James, Philippe and EC have given [global] results. It's always good to hear that we depend less on weather conditions and more on our own work. So, thank you for your good work! :) I agree with you in relation to the standing committee. Most importantly, we need it exactly because of the continuity of the work. Besides obvious benefits, standing committee would be able to create the foundations for elections all over the movement, not just for Board and FDC and it could become the guardian of the democracy inside of our movement. With standing Election committee, it would be much easier to organize any kind of referenda, as well. The second good news, the Ukrainian one, is on the line of the first one and it shows that it's possible to engage particular community. Nat, it would be good if you could prepare the analysis of what you did on Ukrainian Wikipedia and present it not just inside of an online document, but during the conferences in 2015 and 2016. Obviously, you've shown one of pretty valid methods to increase participation in elections. That's good not just because of the magic number of 25%, but because Ukrainian Wikimedians have much better potential to be involved into the global matters in the future. Very bad news is participation of English Wikipedians; and thus, to be more precise, American Wikimedians. More than 50% (I think, the number is more than 60%) of our editors are Americans (and, I think, 80% of money comes from US). While it's better to have more balanced ratio, those are the facts and whenever we are talking about us and our movement, we have to have in mind that more than half of us are Americans. Low participation there means low participation in the numbers which matter the most. We are still inside of the field of small numbers. Engaging one or few particular communities could give us impression that we are going very well, while we are in troubles. Thus, we should find a way to increase participation of our largest community. At this moment we have a number of chapters and user groups in US and Ukrainian experience could help them, too. Besides on-wiki engagement, it would be good, for example, to have few community meetings organized by chapters or user groups before every election. Anders, this list is quite relevant. It's the main forum of our movement and it represents the movement well (up to this moment, thought it's not always the case, this thread has involved five non-native English speakers and just two native ones; that's much better than editor ratio). And although my method of checking community health is quite arbitrary, it could give a clue of what's going on here. If we are more engaged it will affect this list. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis participating, an amazing number! As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates and active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates. And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation rate in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us, we have vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects, but people from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this. This list I find mainly engage people from our biggest communities, especially English, and in this election actually the participation rate from enwp was lower then the mean participation rate Anders attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14: There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the elections, thus we: - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
So, there are two good news and one bad. The most important good one is that efforts made by James, Philippe and EC have given [global] results. It's always good to hear that we depend less on weather conditions and more on our own work. So, thank you for your good work! :) I agree with you in relation to the standing committee. Most importantly, we need it exactly because of the continuity of the work. Besides obvious benefits, standing committee would be able to create the foundations for elections all over the movement, not just for Board and FDC and it could become the guardian of the democracy inside of our movement. With standing Election committee, it would be much easier to organize any kind of referenda, as well. The second good news, the Ukrainian one, is on the line of the first one and it shows that it's possible to engage particular community. Nat, it would be good if you could prepare the analysis of what you did on Ukrainian Wikipedia and present it not just inside of an online document, but during the conferences in 2015 and 2016. Obviously, you've shown one of pretty valid methods to increase participation in elections. That's good not just because of the magic number of 25%, but because Ukrainian Wikimedians have much better potential to be involved into the global matters in the future. Very bad news is participation of English Wikipedians; and thus, to be more precise, American Wikimedians. More than 50% (I think, the number is more than 60%) of our editors are Americans (and, I think, 80% of money comes from US). While it's better to have more balanced ratio, those are the facts and whenever we are talking about us and our movement, we have to have in mind that more than half of us are Americans. Low participation there means low participation in the numbers which matter the most. We are still inside of the field of small numbers. Engaging one or few particular communities could give us impression that we are going very well, while we are in troubles. Thus, we should find a way to increase participation of our largest community. At this moment we have a number of chapters and user groups in US and Ukrainian experience could help them, too. Besides on-wiki engagement, it would be good, for example, to have few community meetings organized by chapters or user groups before every election. Anders, this list is quite relevant. It's the main forum of our movement and it represents the movement well (up to this moment, thought it's not always the case, this thread has involved five non-native English speakers and just two native ones; that's much better than editor ratio). And although my method of checking community health is quite arbitrary, it could give a clue of what's going on here. If we are more engaged it will affect this list. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis participating, an amazing number! As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates and active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates. And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation rate in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us, we have vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects, but people from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this. This list I find mainly engage people from our biggest communities, especially English, and in this election actually the participation rate from enwp was lower then the mean participation rate Anders attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14: There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the elections, thus we: - translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian - prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian and posted it in the Village pump [1] - created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia and sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read more about the candidates via talk pages - and just talked :) [1] https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015 Best regards, antanana ED of Wikimedia Ukraine 2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson brevlis...@gmail.com: 2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com: ... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community and movement. Initially, I was quite
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC annual plan grant recommendations for 2014-2015 Round 2
Minor correction: Appeals are due JUNE 8, 2015, not July 8.[1] Risker/Anne (Member of the FDC) [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information#Calendar On 1 June 2015 at 11:18, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello Wikimedians, The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] Just before the Wikimedia Conference, the FDC met in Berlin to deliberate on the five proposals submitted for this Round. [2] We thank these organizations for their hard work on their annual plans and their proposals. The FDC has now posted our recommendations on Meta for Round 2 2014-2015 on the annual plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [3] Thanks to the leadership of the FDC’s two Board Representatives (Maria Sefidari and Frieda Brioschi), the WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them by 1 July 2015. This round, the six proposals were submitted to the FDC. One proposal was withdrawn before we met to deliberate. We recommended allocations totaling roughly $1,248,913 USD for these five organizations. Note that all allocations were made in local currency. A total of $5,060,913 was allocated in both rounds in this year (2014-2015). The remaining $939,087 from the FDC’s $6 million budget will be returned to the Wikimedia Foundation. Before our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail. We also reviewed staff assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals. We also took into consideration the discussion pages of relevant documents. There is a formal process for grant applicants to submit complaints or appeals about these recommendations. Here are the steps for both: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by 23:59 UTC on 8 July 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Maria Sefidari and Frieda Brioschi). The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision on this and all recommendations by 1 July 2015. Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed. The FDC would like to thank Wikimedia Deutschland for hosting this Round’s deliberations. We appreciate the team that worked hard to make our deliberations meeting a smooth and successful event. Finally, we offer our sincere thanks to the six organizations who submitted annual plan grant proposals to the FDC. On behalf of the FDC, pundit Dariusz Jemielniak (FDC Chair) [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round2 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY 15-16
hi, as a stepping down FDC member I agree with Risker only to some extent. Sure, the FDC will have trouble with capacity for evaluation of the whole plan. However, it is possible to single out some programs (the famous 'core' vs. 'non-core' division) and comment on them. It does not exclude a professional external review, but is probably the only way that the community can somehow really participate in feedback. best, dj On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 May 2015 at 17:03, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote: snip And also a little addition (from [1]): «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. Very much agreed. The Board may need to adjust the calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. What do you think would be a reasonable sort of review? Lila has mentioned the idea of moving towards updated plans every 6 months, with detailed reports every quarter. I would welcome an FDC-style review of the 'latest published biannual plan + report', on any timescale that works for the FDC, assessing the same things that it does for all annual plans. A review of that sort in April or May would be timed well to influence the 'Annual Plan' discussion, even if it was a review of the published plan report as of January, rather than the draft plan developed in April. How would current FDC members feel about this? Can we find a way to do this without obliging the current FDC members to do more work? [considering that there are others with similar experience in the movement] Speaking only for myself and not for the FDC as a whole, I don't think that the FDC has the level of expertise or frankly the amount of time required to review the Annual Plan of the WMF, with its budget being 10x the size of the largest chapter, and its range of activities equally more extensive than anything else that the FDC looks at. As a rule of thumb, most members are spending on average between 15 and 30 hours reviewing each submission now (including historical information), and the WMF plan by itself would probably require at least 100 hours to really understand if the FDC was given the same amount of information by the WMF that it expects of the other entities seeking funds. My brief review and analysis of this very high level plan (including reading and cross-referencing related documents/emails) took pretty much all the volunteer time I had between the time it was published onwiki to the time I posted my comments - and that was only one member, not a committee response. Instead, I think the WMF is due for a serious third-party, impartial, expert review of its Annual plan, with the report going directly to the Board of Directors for its consideration. This is pretty standard amongst many non-profits, and with its international scope and its considerably expanded budget, it's time for the WMF to start getting this level of feedback. It may also prove useful to demonstrate that the plans have been reviewed by an external body when seeking out new partners and new sources of income or endowment. I do believe that community review is also very important to assist in identifying priority topics, significant gaps in the plan, and synergies amongst the entire WMF family of organizations, projects, and volunteers. I personally do not think that the current draft plan really explains where the WMF leadership wants the WMF to go, or where it sees itself a year down the road, let alone two or three years from now. While I am well aware of the need to continuously evaluate progress against goals and to reassess whether or not those goals are appropriate, there does not seem to be a well-articulated long-term vision in this plan. Instead there is the suggestion that the organization may change course quite significantly, and that projects intended to take 3 or 4 quarters to accomplish might get shelved before completion. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- __ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg. Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years. Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good metric - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some of which are actually negative. Luis -- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
Hi Milos, I think you're overestimating the importance of this list, which is read by only a small portion of the community. Many people in the wider community have no idea this exists. Best, --Ed On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg. Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years. Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good metric - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some of which are actually negative. This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other means of communication for that. [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg. Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years. Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good metric - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some of which are actually negative. This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other means of communication for that. [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Election Announcement
My fellow Wikimedians, I am pleased to announce the results of the most vital exercise in democracy in the Wikimedia movement for many years: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MCOTM The first-ever Meta Collaboration of the Month (MCOTM) for June 2015 will be on the [[Events]] page, a particularly long standing and unfortunately out-of-date piece of movement documentation. Meta-Wiki page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Events Meta-Wiki discussion: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Events#Congratulations_to_this_page.2C_the_first-ever_Meta_Collaboration_of_the_Month_for_June_2015.21 Nominations are now being accepted for the July 2015 MCOTM :) (With apologies to the hard work of the WMF elections committee!) Thanks, Pharos ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Priority languages
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: * MediaWiki is developing and messages are changing. While it doesn't matter a lot for the main language to have 99% and not 100% of translated most used messages, the new one won't get a project if it's not 100%. (The situation as it is; I don't like it, but I can't change it.) Won't get a project? Are you saying that new project language editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.) ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Priority languages
On Jun 2, 2015 00:39, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: * MediaWiki is developing and messages are changing. While it doesn't matter a lot for the main language to have 99% and not 100% of translated most used messages, the new one won't get a project if it's not 100%. (The situation as it is; I don't like it, but I can't change it.) Won't get a project? Are you saying that new project language editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.) Writing from the phone, so can't give links... Search for Language proposal policy on Meta. That's theory. I described above how it translates into the practice. It makes sense up to certain point. MediaWiki interface should be in the native language. The condition for the first project isn't hard. It's about 500 messages. In relation to the second and third project I think there are much more sensible work to be done than translating various obscure places of MW interface. (Few years ago few of us, after a lot of arguing removed translation of CheckUser interface as a requirement for the third project, likely Wikibooks or Wikisource.) It would be useful for the sake of future arguments to have data how often people access to particular messages. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
Ed Erhart wrote: I think you're overestimating the importance of this list, which is read by only a small portion of the community. Many people in the wider community have no idea this exists. Sort of. :-) In absolute numbers, of course the total number of list subscribers/readers is a very small part of the total number of people in the Wikimedia community (whatever that encompasses). But we know from years of experience both in the Wikimedia community and elsewhere that even seemingly large communities often have a weirdly small number of unusually highly active people who make up the core (sorry, there's no good term for this). If you do an intersection of _that_ group to wikimedia-l's readers, the gap would be markedly narrower, I think. Or put another way: in terms of general communication paths to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members past and present, Wikimedia Foundation staff past and present, and other longtime Wikimedians, this list (né[e] foundation-l) has been the de facto medium for a decade. This is not to say, for example, that lots of highly active wiki editors are all subscribed here. People who spend a lot of time reverting vandalism may not care to have this feed in their inbox. But the opt-in, open, and public nature of this list is such that people who are (overly!) involved with Wikimedia are quite often subscribed. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Priority languages
Milos Rancic wrote: On Jun 2, 2015 00:39, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: Won't get a project? Are you saying that new project language editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.) [...] It would be useful for the sake of future arguments to have data how often people access to particular messages. Directly related: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T65416#1042471. Though upon re-reading it just now, the specific wording used at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy is actually softer than I thought (it is recommended instead of a hard requirement). 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Priority languages
On Jun 2, 2015 02:08, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Jun 2, 2015 00:39, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: Won't get a project? Are you saying that new project language editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.) [...] It would be useful for the sake of future arguments to have data how often people access to particular messages. Directly related: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T65416#1042471. Though upon re-reading it just now, the specific wording used at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy is actually softer than I thought (it is recommended instead of a hard requirement). Will read Phabricator discussion in the morning... Regarding LPP wording, as I mentioned above, it's theory. Practice is pretty hard and was even harder in the past. I remember Robin and I were waging hard battles for every set we wanted to remove from requirements. I am sure that's documented somewhere, but I forgot where. It should be somewhere on Meta. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Priority languages
Actually, currently the requirements are - most-used messages for the first project in a language - continuing translation activity on TWN for all others Am 02.06.2015 02:18 schrieb Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com: On Jun 2, 2015 02:08, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Jun 2, 2015 00:39, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: Won't get a project? Are you saying that new project language editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.) [...] It would be useful for the sake of future arguments to have data how often people access to particular messages. Directly related: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T65416#1042471. Though upon re-reading it just now, the specific wording used at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy is actually softer than I thought (it is recommended instead of a hard requirement). Will read Phabricator discussion in the morning... Regarding LPP wording, as I mentioned above, it's theory. Practice is pretty hard and was even harder in the past. I remember Robin and I were waging hard battles for every set we wanted to remove from requirements. I am sure that's documented somewhere, but I forgot where. It should be somewhere on Meta. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] While Election committee counts the votes...
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator of activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg. Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years. Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not personally propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good metric - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only some of which are actually negative. This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other means of communication for that. Looking briefly at some of the highest-traffic months, it could simply be that people got tired of discussing high-controversy topics here. (Flamewars are good for traffic volume; not so great for community health.) I'm sure Facebook's increased acceptance also has a role. I suspect also that some announcements that used to come here now go to other, more specialized mailing lists. That last one points to a key thing: as MZ says, many people are subscribed to this list, but many don't read and don't participate, because this mailing list has an *awful* reputation, and people who want to get things done are going elsewhere. So the decline of wikimedia-l may be a sign of bad health of the overall community, or it may simply mean that the healthy and constructive parts of the community has moved elsewhere. To re-iterate what I said in the last email, I'm all ears for suggestions on creative community metrics. I'll add here that I'm also very open to suggestions on what a new wikimedia-l might look like. (I know some FOSS communities are having good experiences with discourse.org, for example.) No commitment that WMF can act on either immediately, of course, but I think it is worth starting both of those discussions. Luis -- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
