Re: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests and common ground]

2016-02-19 Thread Szymon Grabarczuk
+1 for "saying 'technical parts of Wikipedia sucks' is as the same as
'Wikipedia sucks' ".
+1 for "the biggest problem is the user interface design of Wikipedia" and
your Winter-related thoughts (I may be also wrong).

Thanks for all the message.

On 20 February 2016 at 03:02, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Hey Milos,
> You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
> emphasize on this part of your email:
> "For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
> problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
> MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
> We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
> behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
> you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
> that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
> can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
> in technical issues would be worth publishing.
>
> The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
> in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
> articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
> after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
> Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
> Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
> work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
> most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
> technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
> didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
> Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
> watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
> I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
> believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
> edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
> Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
> read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
> learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
> hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.
>
> I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
> aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
> time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
> not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
> and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
> Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
> Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
> cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
> just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
> We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.
>
> I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
> the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
> and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
> I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
> They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
> beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
> conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
> he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
> a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
> who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
> people.
>
> My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
> you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
> welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
> there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
> channels willing to help.
>
> [1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferences
>
> [2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub
>
> I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
> correct me.
> Best
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
*Szymon Grabarczuk*

Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU

[Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests and common ground]

2016-02-19 Thread Amir Ladsgroup
Hey Milos,
You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
emphasize on this part of your email:
"For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
in technical issues would be worth publishing.

The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.

I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.

I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
people.

My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
channels willing to help.

[1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferences

[2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub

I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
correct me.
Best
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 12, Issue 07 -- 17 February 2016

2016-02-19 Thread Trillium Corsage
Hang tough, Lila Tretikov. This will all pass. These people leaving blaming 
you, bah! You are cleaning the WMF cupboard, and that's overdue. Don't let 
anybody or anything psyche you out.

Trillium Corsage

19.02.2016, 21:31, "Wikipedia Signpost" :

> Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of 
> Lila Tretikov
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Dear Ido,

Thank you for your e-mail. I am also grateful to many other people who have
contributed to give us a better understanding of the past and the present
(it is a lot of work).

I would like to read your opinion about two things that I find astonishing
and urging for a remedy:

* How it could come so far that staff members so openly applaud critical
voices about their boss, Lila Tretikov. This is a really terrible signal
about the state of the Foundation. Ido, do you agree with William Beutler
in the Signpost that it is not possible to imagine how the staff and Lila
Tretikov can go on together?

* We have heard from some of the board members. I actually miss the voice
of the chair. It is the task of a chair, certainly in a crisis like this,
to contribute to more clearness, what the Board is thinking, what it
intends to do next. Ido, imagine that the board makes a new start possible,
which would include a new community election. Would you regard that to be
helpful?

Kind regards
Ziko






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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Thyge
Thanks, Denny Vrandecic (and to Dariusz Jemielniak as well) for expressing
some individual views as members of the BoT.

Denny:
A firm choice between the two communication strategies needs not be made.
Both could be proper solutions depending on the situation. But don't you
honestly think,
that the BoT in this case ought to convene and work out a common and
comprehensive response
to the issues raised? I don't necessarily see the need for it to be handled
through legal or why that
would mean its ending up as "a bloodless, corporate-like speech".

The BoT should set the direction for the WMF after discussing topics with
the community.  I am absolutely
sure that the intelligence of the members of the BoT is sufficient both to
realize the situation and to know
that lack of response for so long in itself adds to the Fear, Uncertainty,
and Doubt in the community and the WMF staff.

And for one actual thing, I wonder how anybody could enter the BoT as
affiliate (s)elected members without knowing
the thoughts of the present BoT members on these important issues.

Regards,
Thyge

2016-02-20 0:49 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic :

> Delphine,
>
> thank you.
>
> Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are
> discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight
> that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you
> for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its
> members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).
>
> The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation is
> not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board
> is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS. Some
> of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions
> that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board
> are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a
> representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and
> sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much
> aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than these
> mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.
>
> I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and
> bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will
> continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have no
> idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us forty
> years of wandering in the desert to do so.
>
> I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter how
> stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every
> member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been there
> - and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best
> intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue.
> It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.
>
> To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments on
> many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and
> both are suboptimal.
> # One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the
> community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which
> means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and to
> go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter how
> vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless,
> corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will never
> be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation.
> # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage
> individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more
> individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But this
> also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as
> golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members engage
> with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do
> expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that everything
> said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way
> the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to
> plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and she
> said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal
> implications.
>
> Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion
> which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it -
> considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with
> the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable
> with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will
> press send before I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Denny Vrandecic
Delphine,

thank you.

Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are
discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight
that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you
for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its
members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).

The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation is
not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board
is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS. Some
of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions
that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board
are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a
representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and
sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much
aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than these
mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.

I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and
bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will
continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have no
idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us forty
years of wandering in the desert to do so.

I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter how
stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every
member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been there
- and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best
intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue.
It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.

To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments on
many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and
both are suboptimal.
# One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the
community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which
means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and to
go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter how
vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless,
corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will never
be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation.
# The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage
individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more
individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But this
also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as
golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members engage
with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do
expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that everything
said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way
the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to
plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and she
said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal
implications.

Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion
which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it -
considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with
the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable
with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will
press send before I just delete it.

This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not
trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away
from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying
to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.

Again, thanks,
Denny




On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
>
> This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
>
> And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
> is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
> in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
> admitting failure.
>
> I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
> was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
> When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
> Corporation, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Thyge
This marvellous thread goes a long way to prove that we are in possession
of a very able, considerate, and polite WMF-oriented community in addition
to the "silent" community that goes on editing our sites.
But it also makes me wonder whether the BoT as a  body maintains its
silence about the issues? If they have answered somewhere else, please
someone point to it.

Regards,
Thyge

2016-02-19 23:24 GMT+01:00 Delphine Ménard :

> Here you go SJ,
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
> > Delphine writes:
> >>   
> >> We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it
> > without
> >> having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is
> > not
> >> a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
>
>
> ... reverting sometimes *is* a good idea. And maybe the only idea.
>
>
> Delphine
> --
> @notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On 2016-02-19 23:24, Delphine Ménard wrote:

Here you go SJ,


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sam Klein  
wrote:



Delphine writes:

  
We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it

without
having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation 
is

not

a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that



... reverting sometimes *is* a good idea. And maybe the only idea.


Delphine


No way. We do not want to be reverted back to 2008. We are in 2016 now.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Delphine Ménard
Here you go SJ,


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> Delphine writes:
>>   
>> We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it
> without
>> having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is
> not
>> a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that


... reverting sometimes *is* a good idea. And maybe the only idea.


Delphine
-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Ad Huikeshoven
Dear friends,

Dear friends of open and free knowledge,

Let us raise the bar,
To the level of positive and constructive,
Don't bite the newcomers,
Assume good faith.

Keep a good balance,
Between work and life,
Don't do overtime without prior authorization,
Enjoy your weekend.

Meet friends and family,
Engage in meaningful discourse,
Go on a hike,  walking or biking,
Enjoy fresh air.

Find a mentor and a coach,
If you don't have one,
Start journaling for a daily
Reflection on accomplishment,
And to record your gratitude.

Be nice to your boss,
The next one maybe worse.

Acknowledge that we live,
In a complex and confusing world,
Rapidly changing both within,
And outside the Wikimedia movement.

From my perspective I do not,
Question the ability of the BoT,
To rubberstamp decisions based  on,
Recommendations by the FDC.

Join the pilot or experiment at,
Https://discourse.wmflabs.org ,
And set your preferences for
Categories to watch or unwatch,
And mute whatever you like.

There are so many positions unfillled,
That I don't recommend to open more,
Before I have asked suggestions,
From each of you for who would be:

A great CTO at the Wikipedia Foundation A great leader of Community
Or someone to fill the BoT seat,
Vacated by Arnnon Geshuri.

Have a nice weekend,

Ad Huikeshoven
Op 19 feb. 2016 22:11 schreef "Sam Klein" :

> Dear Siko,
>
> I was trying to phrase something like this, but you beat me to it.  This
> discussion gives me hope.
>
> Siko writes:
>
> > Ido, Ori, Sydney, Shani, Ben, Delphine, Gayle, thank you for your
> boldness
> > and wisdom in this thread. I know how rarely some of us speak on this
> list,
> > and I appreciate you raising your voices here, now. I need to believe
> that
> > the power of the collective leadership that so many volunteers and staff
> > are showing here will ultimately be strong enough to ensure that the
> > Wikimedia Foundation has the leadership that its mission deserves.
>
>
> Thank you to Ori, Dan, Brion, and other staff for sharing your thoughts
> over the past days, and dispelling some of the mystery and uncertainty.
>
> To the board, please engage.  We are in this together, and depend on one
> another.  Have an honest conversation with the staff and community about
> the immediate problems, let us find a way forward.  Dariusz, don't fall
> silent – we need your perspective.
>
>
> Delphine writes:
> >   
> > We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it
> without
> > having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is
> not
> > a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
>
> More to be said here, but first: I hope you will finish this thought.
>
>
> Sam
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Particular interests and common ground (was: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT)

2016-02-19 Thread Milos Rancic
I woke up this morning, read emails and felt quite frustrated. I
wanted to write something on Delphine's line, but that Ark B
distracted me enough to make myself content with one more satirical
allegory.

So, thank you very much, Delphine, for writing this and opening much
more important discussion! Much more than the Knight grant is or even
the issues of Lila, James and Arnnon.

For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
MediaWiki, optimizations etc.). Everything else is in the range
between "regular problem we use to deal with" and quite serious
problem.

Unlike Delphine and the most people from chapters, I want to see our
movement as federation, not as confederation. I don't think we are
ready to have loosely connected network of chapters and user groups.
And that's not because of us as Wikimedians but because of us as
humans. It's not reasonable to expect functional decentralized global
movement without more common values than just those based on licenses.
(No, we don't have any other.)

However, it doesn't work if there is no hard democratic influence over
the decision-making process. And everything I heard about increasing
community participation in decision-making processes for the last ~10
years was demagogy and doublespeak.

And, unlike dominant echoing here, I want to say that significant
portion of staff is at least the passive part of that problem. (Keep
in mind that Wikimedia staff are usually not just ordinary employees,
but people with high level of political influence inside of the
movement.) My memory says that I've seen staff talking openly about
any problem just in the most visible and problematic cases. If not, of
course, it was on the line of the Board and ED.

Have you noticed that this is almost exclusively the problem between
significant portion of staff and highly involved American Wikimedians
on one side and ED and Board on the other one? Community and chapters
mostly don't care. Except, of course, that something very wrong is
going on.

That's the product of previous (non-)actions, cultivation of
particular interests, lack of solidarity, lack of articulating common
values and building common culture; the product of "implementing
goals" no matter of their long term price and total failure of the
Board structure.

We are in constant crisis and I find a bit cynical the fact that one
of the most influential groups inside of the movement is detecting it
just when their dream jobs are on stake. Sorry for being harsh, but
that's the fact.

To overcome this fully dysfunctional situation, we need to create the
deal between the major stakeholders of the movement: Community, Board,
chapters and staff (including ED). We have to define what are the
expectations of every group and how to make those expectations
fulfilled in the way that everybody see the value in participating
into the movement if not to see everybody content.

This is something that had to be done a decade ago, but it's better to
be done sooner than later and ever than never. We can't function with
implicit expectations forever.

For example, If staff expects to be able to veto ED or to participate
in selecting her or him -- which I find to be a reasonable
expectation, having in mind the nature of our movement -- it should be
articulated and, if no other stakeholder have anything strictly
against it, we should find the way how to implement that.

But that's just about this ongoing issue. The list of expectations
from various sides is long and we should talk about them one by one.

The process of reaching the common grounds is not easy, not shiny,
requires a lot of work and nerves. Saying to each other "yes" or
"thank you" is not helping, neither. We need to work hard on that.
Useful Strategic Plan for the Board and management is not that, as
well. We need reach the deal, not to achieve one more goal.

The most important obstacle is prevalent conformism, which destroys
any collective ability to talk about anything "too hard", unless you
are not pissed off by something.

Without our collective willingness to tackle hard and complex
problems, I see business as usual, which means that Board will keep
reacting just with crisis PR, without too much need to address the
real issues and problems. Wikipedia will exist, chapters and others
will be doing their projects.

The only large victim of that approach would be the movement itself.
But, it would be the movement itself who made the suicide.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Delphine Ménard  wrote:
> I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
>
> This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> daring, heartfelt and bold emails 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving transparency and communication

2016-02-19 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Adele Vrana  wrote:

> As you noted in your email, recent events make a conversation about
> transparency crucial right now, and that’s why we would like to invite
> anyone to share stories, ideas and best practices on this Meta page.
>  Stories about how
> transparency or lack of transparency affects your work (or your
> organization's work) in the movement can help to communicate the
> significance of this value.


this is great. We often speak of transparency, but when we fall back for
procedures and protocols, we're often left with what is widely available -
legal approaches to confidentiality. I think this is something very useful
for the BoT and worth developing, I would like to thank you for starting it
(while acknowledging that this is not a diversion from a different topic).

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving transparency and communication

2016-02-19 Thread Adele Vrana
Hi Lodewijk and all,

As a result of our All-Hands event in early January this year, an informal
group of staff members (namely: Siko Bouterse, Guillaume Paumier, Edward
Galvez, Caitlin Cogdill, Jessica Robell and myself) decided to come
together and start a series of conversations about transparency. Our goal
was to provide practical examples of how to apply our value of transparency
to our day-to-day work in practice.

We started a Meta page to identify some good transparency practices and
guidelines, initially intended as a resource for our co-workers, but we
hope it may also be useful for others in the movement. We can’t do this as
staff alone, though.

As you noted in your email, recent events make a conversation about
transparency crucial right now, and that’s why we would like to invite
anyone to share stories, ideas and best practices on this Meta page.
 Stories about how
transparency or lack of transparency affects your work (or your
organization's work) in the movement can help to communicate the
significance of this value.

We hope to see your stories and ideas there. Lodewijk - we've already added
your suggestion from this thread to the talk page, but people should of
course feel welcome to incorporate ideas directly into the main page as
well.

To be clear, this page isn’t meant to replace the meaningful discussion and
changes that many are pushing for on today’s issues here, but just as
another resource for documenting how those of us who believe in
transparency can better live this value.

In solidarity,
Adele

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Lodewijk,
>
> Thank you for this suggestion. I drafted a proposal about a month ago for
> something like this, as a community-initiated project; however, I agree
> that something with explicit buy-in from the Board would be much better.
> Still, perhaps this draft will be useful; it is Proposal #1 (of two) on
> this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/Heilman15
>
> Do keep in mind, it is a bit out of date; help in updating it and/or moving
> it to main space as a more formal proposal is welcome.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lila,
> >
> > Thank you for the update and the pointer.
> >
> > As you probably noted, there have been several 'incidents' quickly
> > following each other, which worry me, and probably you too. You're saying
> > that you welcome feedback and discussion, and that you're having internal
> > conversations on how to improve communication.
> >
> > When problems continue like this in governments, you often see (well,
> this
> > probably depends on the country) that a committee is appointed to
> > investigate what is really the problem, and to come with some general
> > recommendations for structural improvements.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is the most effective method, but it might be an
> > effective way to gain back a bit of trust. Why not appoint a small
> > committee of a few trusted community members, that can get a bit more
> > information (also when that has to remain confidential) and make some
> > structural recommendations with regards to communicating with the
> > community? Normally I'd expect the Board to take such role, but given
> > recent events, I don't have the feeling the Board is best placed to do
> so.
> >
> > Just thinking out loud, maybe there are better ideas to approach this in
> a
> > way that builds trust again.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Lila Tretikov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today:
> > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are
> > > also
> > > having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and
> > > transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you
> going
> > > forward.
> > >
> > > I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader
> > efforts
> > > while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I
> > > welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > Lila
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Candidates - Affiliate Selected members of the WMF Board

2016-02-19 Thread Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 19/02/2016 alle 10.18 -0500, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
>1. So far as I know no one has contacted chapters directly. I would
> like
>for every chapter to take responsibility for contacting a few
> others and
>confirming that they are engaged in the election. It would be
> difficult to
>centrally manage communication with everyone. Do you know anyone at
> any
>chapter that you could ask to have their chapter discuss the
> election with
>a few others?

In addition to what Lane wrote: chapters (and Amical) have been
contacted using the chapters' mailing list, and all chapters board
members should be subscribed to that. Still, some chapters may not be on
the list, or they subscriptions may not be up-to-date, therefore we're
doing a manual check on the list of subscribers.

> Anne -
> 
>1. Yes there are three white males on the election committee. [...]

I think Anne was referring to the results of 2015 elections (with
Dariusz, James and Danny elected), not to the election facilitators.
The positive note here is that at the last two ASBS rounds both elected
trustees were not North American/European white males!

Laurentius



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Sam Klein
Dear Siko,

I was trying to phrase something like this, but you beat me to it.  This
discussion gives me hope.

Siko writes:

> Ido, Ori, Sydney, Shani, Ben, Delphine, Gayle, thank you for your boldness
> and wisdom in this thread. I know how rarely some of us speak on this list,
> and I appreciate you raising your voices here, now. I need to believe that
> the power of the collective leadership that so many volunteers and staff
> are showing here will ultimately be strong enough to ensure that the
> Wikimedia Foundation has the leadership that its mission deserves.


Thank you to Ori, Dan, Brion, and other staff for sharing your thoughts
over the past days, and dispelling some of the mystery and uncertainty.

To the board, please engage.  We are in this together, and depend on one
another.  Have an honest conversation with the staff and community about
the immediate problems, let us find a way forward.  Dariusz, don't fall
silent – we need your perspective.


Delphine writes:
>   
> We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it
without
> having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is
not
> a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that

More to be said here, but first: I hope you will finish this thought.


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the Board's HR Committee doing to stem the tide of staff resignations?

2016-02-19 Thread Florence Devouard

Le 18/02/16 21:38, Brion Vibber a écrit :

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
  wrote:



On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Brion Vibber 
  wrote:


What is the board doing, going forward, to stem the tide of staff
resignations?



  We have started with an engagement survey, and organizational facilitator
analysis. More and more current input can be provided by Patricio or others
from the Board's HR Committee, but there is also a lot of work done by the
HR department, under its new leadership.



Patricio, can you add more details here please?

The engagement survey in November showed very, very low support for the
Executive Director. I'm not sure what "organizational facilitator analysis"
is, but if it's related to the management coaching for Lila, there are some
unanswered emails on the staff list which are very discouraging. I can
forward them to you if you are unaware.

As a longtime part of Wikimedia's community and staff, I would really
appreciate some clear answers on what's going on and why we're losing more
and more longtime community and staff members while an ED who needs
management coaching is still in place.

-- brion


Coaching which might or might not help if the whole situation is a case 
of Peter Principle in action.


Florence



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Siko Bouterse
 Ido, Ori, Sydney, Shani, Ben, Delphine, Gayle, thank you for your boldness
and wisdom in this thread. I know how rarely some of us speak on this list,
and I appreciate you raising your voices here, now. I need to believe that
the power of the collective leadership that so many volunteers and staff
are showing here will ultimately be strong enough to ensure that the
Wikimedia Foundation has the leadership that its mission deserves.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Richard Farmbrough
It's all very well to assume that certain demographics are wealthy. But 
it is simply a stereotype. Wikipedians I know personally from the 
"privileged" demographics vary from those who are well off through to 
those who are saddled with substantial debt and zero income.


But really the question is, given the funds available, and the benefits 
that accrue, why there should be such a limited WMF spend on Wikimania 
(and/or other gatherings).   It is one of the few discretionary spends 
that we know from stories like Doc James' has a huge impact.


On 10/02/2016 16:27, Béria Lima wrote:
And I for one agree with the new policy. The effort made by a European 
(or American, or Canadian) to travel to a Wikimania, is something like 
one month of salary. For a woman from the same place will probably be 
2 months (pay gap at its finest!) and for a Latino, African, or 
Asiatic the effort starts at 6 months and go on to even a decade*[4]* 
(A full decade of your salary to go to Wikimania).



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Pharos
I'd like to second Lodewijk's suggestion of something more like Wikicamp,
though I don't think that necessarily means it has be much smaller.

I wonder how the economics of something like the Wikimedia Armenia
experience would expand to a larger, more international participation.

Personally, it has always been my ambition to host a WikiWoodstock in an
upstate New York campground, but that's just me :)

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> An experiment I'd be more than willing to think about, is to have a 'real
> wikimania' every two years, and a more 'light edition' the other year (with
> less aimed attendance, less WMF participation, maybe less subsidised, a
> cheaper location, more like a wikicamp).
>
> But, to look at that in a proper way, we have to know a bit more details,
> and that requires a good discussion, rather than a one-off survey.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> >
> > Again, we have not "proven" in any way that it has to be cheap. When
> cheap
> > comes at the prize of losing what is precious.
> >
> > When we choose to ignore the cost of WMF travel of personnel, we
> > effectively cook the books because the need for WMF inclusion is high. It
> > is one of the aspects that makes Wikimania precious.
> >
> > Much of the value of Wikimania is in meeting people from all over the
> > world. This is happily ignored in a quest for a cheap experience.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 19 February 2016 at 02:06, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > > Chris & Ellie:  I don't think I would include 'WMF Travel/Accomodation'
> > or
> > > general Wikimedia PR in the Wikimania overhead.
> > >   * Staff have a budget for travel to events of all kinds; the Board
> has
> > a
> > > budget for its meetings wherever they are held; and similarly the few
> > > committees that meet in person have a budget for those meetings.
> > >   * The fact that these things happen to take place at Wikimania is, if
> > > anything, a slight cost savings: some of the logistics of scheduling
> and
> > > finding venues can be shared, it allows coordinating press events, 
> > >
> > >
> > > Lodewijk, I agree: we should be able to find ways to limit direct
> > expenses,
> > > and increase sponsorships.  We could also increase the number of people
> > who
> > > benefit from scholarships, or are otherwise able to attend.
> > >
> > > Focusing on direct expenses from recent Wikimanias:
> > > * 2014 budget:  $250K revenue + a $150K WMF grant.  Actual: $280K
> > revenue,
> > > needed $320K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> > > * 2015 budget:  $150K revenue + a $300K WMF grant.  Actual: $100K
> > revenue,
> > > needed $380K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> > > * 2016 budget:  $290K? revenue + a $250K WMF grant.
> > >
> > > Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa?  From the
> post-mortem
> > on
> > > Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a $100K WMF grant. This included
> > > paying for the event coordinator, which is now budgeted separately.
> That
> > > was for the finest event one could hope for.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lodewijk writes:
> > > > 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more
> > than I
> > > > would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is
> always
> > > > an expensive chunk...
> > >
> > > Registration fees should at least cover the marginal cost of the event:
> > > catering & materials per person.
> > >
> > >
> > > > looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to
> do
> > it
> > > for
> > > > less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up would
> > > > significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is included
> > > here.
> > >
> > > The greater part of money spent on attending Wikimania is the
> > out-of-pocket
> > > cost of flights and hotels.  The cost of this for non-local attendees
> is
> > > 10-50x the cost of registration.  Running many simultaneous local
> events
> > > has a greater total budget, if you look only at the budgets of the
> > > organizers; but a much lower cost per person.  There are many more
> > options
> > > for free venues and low-cost lodging when you're not scrambling to fit
> > 1000
> > > people in a small region of a city.  And a smaller fraction of money
> > spent
> > > goes towards jet fuel.
> > >
> > > For this reason, the same pool of scholarship funds would go farther.
> > >
> > > Finally, I don't think we should oversell the current Wikimania as a
> > > universal connector.  I too want there to be a community thing that
> > builds
> > > interpersonal connections and is accessible to every community member
> at
> > > low cost.  But that thing cannot be a $2,000-net-cost week-long
> > > conference.  Many people could never attend such an event, even if it
> > were
> > > free.  It is a long time commitment, and is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Ellie Young
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi Ellie,
>
> with donations, i was referring to the item on the linked financial report.
> Does it indeed include sponsorships?
>

I've corrected-- it should just be sponsorships.

Ellie

>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Ellie Young  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, it is a step in the right direction indeed. Although a bit more
> > > breakdown would be helpful,
> >
> >
> > I am working on that
> >
> >
> > > I'm guessing this also highly fluctuates year
> > > by year.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Some observations:
> > >
> > > A huge amount of money goes into flying WMF around the world (321k
> resp.
> > > 383k), which doesn't even take into account (I'm assuming) all the
> hours
> > > invested into it.
> > >
> >
> > The expenses related to staff time to attend and other staff support
> within
> > the Foundation is
> > not accounted for here.  (We have included my time, and contract staff
> > support that we pay to
> > assist the local team.)
> >
> >
> > > I'm assuming 'donations' includes sponsorships. That amount is less
> than
> > I
> > > would have expected/hoped.
> >
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by 'donations'.   Donors to WMF do support
> Wikimania
> > since we
> > heavily subsidize the event (registration fees are VERY low and don't
> cover
> > the costs... that has
> > been a policy to keep it very affordable.Sponsorships are from
> > corporate sponsors
> > like ask.com, google, wikihow, etc.   These relationships are managed by
> > me
> >  The local
> > host team also is involved in trying to get sponsorships, which is often
> > very difficult.  I'd
> > welcome more suggestions and help in finding more sponsors.
> >
> >
> > > Registration income is low, as expected (the
> > > burden would just be moved to a different part of our movement: the
> > > community)
> > >
> > > 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more
> than I
> > > would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is always
> > an
> > > expensive chunk (5days * 1000 people will even at a quite low 30 dollar
> > per
> > > day easily give 150k, not even counting the parties etc).
> > >
> >
> > Catering is usually our highest direct cost.  In London Wikimania '14, it
> > was the rental of
> > the Barbican Centre venue.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Many of these costs would still exist if you split the event up in
> > multiple
> > > events spread out. WMF would still want to fly everywhere (board has to
> > > meet anyway, WMF staff wants to engage anyway, committees have to meet
> > > somewhere), catering won't be much cheaper if spread over multiple
> > events,
> > > and don't underestimate the manpower it would take to organise all
> those
> > > events - relatively it may be even more.
> > >
> >
> > I do think we could consider some different models for how we produce
> > conferences
> > that would be more reasonable cost-wise.  And yes, there might be
> > additional expense
> > for staffing, but this could be offset  depending on the format, location
> > and size
> > of the conference.
> >
> > >
> > > So looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to
> do
> > > it for less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up
> > > would significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is
> > included
> > > here.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe we should do the "experiment" as suggested and see!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Sam Klein 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's most helpful, thank you both.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Pharos <
> pharosofalexand...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Ellie and Chris, this historical experience should be very
> > > > helpful
> > > > > for future discussions!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Pharos
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Schilling <
> > > > cschill...@wikimedia.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ellie has put together a summarized budget including revenue and
> > > > expenses
> > > > > > from Wikimania 2014 in London[1] and Wikimania 2015[2], which
> I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > ahead and posted to the summary pages of these conferences on
> meta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] 
> > > > > > [2] 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Klein  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Itzik writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be
> great
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > WMF and the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Lodewijk
An experiment I'd be more than willing to think about, is to have a 'real
wikimania' every two years, and a more 'light edition' the other year (with
less aimed attendance, less WMF participation, maybe less subsidised, a
cheaper location, more like a wikicamp).

But, to look at that in a proper way, we have to know a bit more details,
and that requires a good discussion, rather than a one-off survey.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> Again, we have not "proven" in any way that it has to be cheap. When cheap
> comes at the prize of losing what is precious.
>
> When we choose to ignore the cost of WMF travel of personnel, we
> effectively cook the books because the need for WMF inclusion is high. It
> is one of the aspects that makes Wikimania precious.
>
> Much of the value of Wikimania is in meeting people from all over the
> world. This is happily ignored in a quest for a cheap experience.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 19 February 2016 at 02:06, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Chris & Ellie:  I don't think I would include 'WMF Travel/Accomodation'
> or
> > general Wikimedia PR in the Wikimania overhead.
> >   * Staff have a budget for travel to events of all kinds; the Board has
> a
> > budget for its meetings wherever they are held; and similarly the few
> > committees that meet in person have a budget for those meetings.
> >   * The fact that these things happen to take place at Wikimania is, if
> > anything, a slight cost savings: some of the logistics of scheduling and
> > finding venues can be shared, it allows coordinating press events, 
> >
> >
> > Lodewijk, I agree: we should be able to find ways to limit direct
> expenses,
> > and increase sponsorships.  We could also increase the number of people
> who
> > benefit from scholarships, or are otherwise able to attend.
> >
> > Focusing on direct expenses from recent Wikimanias:
> > * 2014 budget:  $250K revenue + a $150K WMF grant.  Actual: $280K
> revenue,
> > needed $320K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> > * 2015 budget:  $150K revenue + a $300K WMF grant.  Actual: $100K
> revenue,
> > needed $380K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> > * 2016 budget:  $290K? revenue + a $250K WMF grant.
> >
> > Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa?  From the post-mortem
> on
> > Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a $100K WMF grant. This included
> > paying for the event coordinator, which is now budgeted separately. That
> > was for the finest event one could hope for.
> >
> >
> > Lodewijk writes:
> > > 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more
> than I
> > > would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is always
> > > an expensive chunk...
> >
> > Registration fees should at least cover the marginal cost of the event:
> > catering & materials per person.
> >
> >
> > > looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to do
> it
> > for
> > > less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up would
> > > significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is included
> > here.
> >
> > The greater part of money spent on attending Wikimania is the
> out-of-pocket
> > cost of flights and hotels.  The cost of this for non-local attendees is
> > 10-50x the cost of registration.  Running many simultaneous local events
> > has a greater total budget, if you look only at the budgets of the
> > organizers; but a much lower cost per person.  There are many more
> options
> > for free venues and low-cost lodging when you're not scrambling to fit
> 1000
> > people in a small region of a city.  And a smaller fraction of money
> spent
> > goes towards jet fuel.
> >
> > For this reason, the same pool of scholarship funds would go farther.
> >
> > Finally, I don't think we should oversell the current Wikimania as a
> > universal connector.  I too want there to be a community thing that
> builds
> > interpersonal connections and is accessible to every community member at
> > low cost.  But that thing cannot be a $2,000-net-cost week-long
> > conference.  Many people could never attend such an event, even if it
> were
> > free.  It is a long time commitment, and is inevitably mono or bilingual.
> >
> > Sam
> > (who loves the current Wikimanias, and thinks they should continue! but
> > doesn't think they are the pinnacle of what movement-gatherings could be)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Sam Klein 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That's most helpful, thank you both.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Pharos 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks, Ellie and Chris, this historical experience should be very
> > helpful
> > >> for future discussions!
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Pharos
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Schilling <
> > >> cschill...@wikimedia.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hey folks,
> > >> >
> > >> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,

Again, we have not "proven" in any way that it has to be cheap. When cheap
comes at the prize of losing what is precious.

When we choose to ignore the cost of WMF travel of personnel, we
effectively cook the books because the need for WMF inclusion is high. It
is one of the aspects that makes Wikimania precious.

Much of the value of Wikimania is in meeting people from all over the
world. This is happily ignored in a quest for a cheap experience.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 19 February 2016 at 02:06, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Chris & Ellie:  I don't think I would include 'WMF Travel/Accomodation' or
> general Wikimedia PR in the Wikimania overhead.
>   * Staff have a budget for travel to events of all kinds; the Board has a
> budget for its meetings wherever they are held; and similarly the few
> committees that meet in person have a budget for those meetings.
>   * The fact that these things happen to take place at Wikimania is, if
> anything, a slight cost savings: some of the logistics of scheduling and
> finding venues can be shared, it allows coordinating press events, 
>
>
> Lodewijk, I agree: we should be able to find ways to limit direct expenses,
> and increase sponsorships.  We could also increase the number of people who
> benefit from scholarships, or are otherwise able to attend.
>
> Focusing on direct expenses from recent Wikimanias:
> * 2014 budget:  $250K revenue + a $150K WMF grant.  Actual: $280K revenue,
> needed $320K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> * 2015 budget:  $150K revenue + a $300K WMF grant.  Actual: $100K revenue,
> needed $380K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> * 2016 budget:  $290K? revenue + a $250K WMF grant.
>
> Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa?  From the post-mortem on
> Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a $100K WMF grant. This included
> paying for the event coordinator, which is now budgeted separately. That
> was for the finest event one could hope for.
>
>
> Lodewijk writes:
> > 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more than I
> > would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is always
> > an expensive chunk...
>
> Registration fees should at least cover the marginal cost of the event:
> catering & materials per person.
>
>
> > looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to do it
> for
> > less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up would
> > significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is included
> here.
>
> The greater part of money spent on attending Wikimania is the out-of-pocket
> cost of flights and hotels.  The cost of this for non-local attendees is
> 10-50x the cost of registration.  Running many simultaneous local events
> has a greater total budget, if you look only at the budgets of the
> organizers; but a much lower cost per person.  There are many more options
> for free venues and low-cost lodging when you're not scrambling to fit 1000
> people in a small region of a city.  And a smaller fraction of money spent
> goes towards jet fuel.
>
> For this reason, the same pool of scholarship funds would go farther.
>
> Finally, I don't think we should oversell the current Wikimania as a
> universal connector.  I too want there to be a community thing that builds
> interpersonal connections and is accessible to every community member at
> low cost.  But that thing cannot be a $2,000-net-cost week-long
> conference.  Many people could never attend such an event, even if it were
> free.  It is a long time commitment, and is inevitably mono or bilingual.
>
> Sam
> (who loves the current Wikimanias, and thinks they should continue! but
> doesn't think they are the pinnacle of what movement-gatherings could be)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
> > That's most helpful, thank you both.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Pharos 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Ellie and Chris, this historical experience should be very
> helpful
> >> for future discussions!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Pharos
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Schilling <
> >> cschill...@wikimedia.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey folks,
> >> >
> >> > Ellie has put together a summarized budget including revenue and
> >> expenses
> >> > from Wikimania 2014 in London[1] and Wikimania 2015[2], which I've
> gone
> >> > ahead and posted to the summary pages of these conferences on meta.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > [1] 
> >> > [2] 
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Klein 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Itzik writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great if
> >> the
> >> > > WMF and the local team will share the costs.
> >> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Ellie,

with donations, i was referring to the item on the linked financial report.
Does it indeed include sponsorships?

Lodewijk

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Ellie Young  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, it is a step in the right direction indeed. Although a bit more
> > breakdown would be helpful,
>
>
> I am working on that
>
>
> > I'm guessing this also highly fluctuates year
> > by year.
>
>
>
>
> > Some observations:
> >
> > A huge amount of money goes into flying WMF around the world (321k resp.
> > 383k), which doesn't even take into account (I'm assuming) all the hours
> > invested into it.
> >
>
> The expenses related to staff time to attend and other staff support within
> the Foundation is
> not accounted for here.  (We have included my time, and contract staff
> support that we pay to
> assist the local team.)
>
>
> > I'm assuming 'donations' includes sponsorships. That amount is less than
> I
> > would have expected/hoped.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by 'donations'.   Donors to WMF do support Wikimania
> since we
> heavily subsidize the event (registration fees are VERY low and don't cover
> the costs... that has
> been a policy to keep it very affordable.Sponsorships are from
> corporate sponsors
> like ask.com, google, wikihow, etc.   These relationships are managed by
> me
>  The local
> host team also is involved in trying to get sponsorships, which is often
> very difficult.  I'd
> welcome more suggestions and help in finding more sponsors.
>
>
> > Registration income is low, as expected (the
> > burden would just be moved to a different part of our movement: the
> > community)
> >
> > 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more than I
> > would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is always
> an
> > expensive chunk (5days * 1000 people will even at a quite low 30 dollar
> per
> > day easily give 150k, not even counting the parties etc).
> >
>
> Catering is usually our highest direct cost.  In London Wikimania '14, it
> was the rental of
> the Barbican Centre venue.
>
>
> >
> > Many of these costs would still exist if you split the event up in
> multiple
> > events spread out. WMF would still want to fly everywhere (board has to
> > meet anyway, WMF staff wants to engage anyway, committees have to meet
> > somewhere), catering won't be much cheaper if spread over multiple
> events,
> > and don't underestimate the manpower it would take to organise all those
> > events - relatively it may be even more.
> >
>
> I do think we could consider some different models for how we produce
> conferences
> that would be more reasonable cost-wise.  And yes, there might be
> additional expense
> for staffing, but this could be offset  depending on the format, location
> and size
> of the conference.
>
> >
> > So looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to do
> > it for less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up
> > would significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is
> included
> > here.
> >
>
> Maybe we should do the "experiment" as suggested and see!
>
>
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Sam Klein 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That's most helpful, thank you both.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Pharos 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, Ellie and Chris, this historical experience should be very
> > > helpful
> > > > for future discussions!
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Pharos
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Schilling <
> > > cschill...@wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ellie has put together a summarized budget including revenue and
> > > expenses
> > > > > from Wikimania 2014 in London[1] and Wikimania 2015[2], which I've
> > gone
> > > > > ahead and posted to the summary pages of these conferences on meta.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] 
> > > > > [2] 
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Klein 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Itzik writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > WMF and the local team will share the costs.
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Budget
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015/Budget
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something, but it's strange that such discussion
> > > takes
> > > > > > place without a real budget breakdown.
> > > > > > > To summarize 2 huge event to "1$ million USD" does not make
> > sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed 1million%.  It would be important to see a rough 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the Board's HR Committee doing to stem the tide of staff resignations?

2016-02-19 Thread Sam Klein
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:35 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> My respect for the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation has only
> grown seeing the restraint and maturity with which you all have acted.
>

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


[Wikimedia-l] English Wikipedia India / Project WIN planning

2016-02-19 Thread Tito Dutta
​Hi WikiFriends,
*We need your suggestions and feedback. *

We are planning a few initiatives for WikiProject India (English
Wikipedia). For a long time we have been feeling:

   - *On one hand:* WikiProject India is one of the largest projects in
   Wikimedia
   - *On the other hand: *We sometimes face it difficult to organize simple
   co-ordination projects.

We are planning a few initiatives, *please see*:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives

If you have a look at this, you'll clearly understand that we are not
planning anything big at this moment.

Please share you suggestions.

PS. The main project page is here on Meta Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_India_Nurturing and here on
English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Project_WIN

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Michal Lester
Thank you Delphine for a fascinating analysis of of the recent history
and current
state of the situation.

*Michal Lester,*



*Executive DirectorWikimedia Israel*
*http://www.wikimedia.org.il   *
*972-50-8996046 ; 972-77-751-6032  *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Ellie Young
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Chris & Ellie:  I don't think I would include 'WMF Travel/Accomodation' or
> general Wikimedia PR in the Wikimania overhead.
>

It usually isn't but this was prepared in response to people in earlier
threads wanting to know the total WMF cost for Wikimania.  When I get the
detailed breakout for Wikimania direct expenses done, I will reformat/note
this.


>   * Staff have a budget for travel to events of all kinds; the Board has a
> budget for its meetings wherever they are held; and similarly the few
> committees that meet in person have a budget for those meetings.
>   * The fact that these things happen to take place at Wikimania is, if
> anything, a slight cost savings: some of the logistics of scheduling and
> finding venues can be shared, it allows coordinating press events, 
>
>
> Lodewijk, I agree: we should be able to find ways to limit direct
> expenses, and increase sponsorships.  We could also increase the number of
> people who benefit from scholarships, or are otherwise able to attend.
>
> Focusing on direct expenses from recent Wikimanias:
> * 2014 budget:  $250K revenue + a $150K WMF grant.  Actual: $280K revenue,
> needed $320K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> * 2015 budget:  $150K revenue + a $300K WMF grant.  Actual: $100K revenue,
> needed $380K from WMF to cover direct expenses
> * 2016 budget:  $290K? revenue
>

I think the Esino Lario team is projecting about $100K in other sources of
revenue (but this will be updated I'm sure since the information on the bid
is preliminary).


> + a $250K WMF grant.
>



>
> Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa?  From the post-mortem
> on Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a $100K WMF grant. This included
> paying for the event coordinator, which is now budgeted separately. That
> was for the finest event one could hope for.
>
>
> Lodewijk writes:
> > 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more than
> I
> > would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is always
> > an expensive chunk...
>
> Registration fees should at least cover the marginal cost of the event:
> catering & materials per person.
>

I could pitch that to WMF when we set fees/budget  for future
Wikimania's

>
>

>
> > looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to do it
> for
> > less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up would
> > significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is included
> here.
>
> The greater part of money spent on attending Wikimania is the
> out-of-pocket cost of flights and hotels.  The cost of this for non-local
> attendees is 10-50x the cost of registration.  Running many simultaneous
> local events has a greater total budget, if you look only at the budgets of
> the organizers; but a much lower cost per person.  There are many more
> options for free venues and low-cost lodging when you're not scrambling to
> fit 1000 people in a small region of a city.  And a smaller fraction of
> money spent goes towards jet fuel.
>
> For this reason, the same pool of scholarship funds would go farther.
>
> Finally, I don't think we should oversell the current Wikimania as a
> universal connector.  I too want there to be a community thing that
> builds interpersonal connections and is accessible to every community
> member at low cost.  But that thing cannot be a $2,000-net-cost week-long
> conference.  Many people could never attend such an event, even if it were
> free.  It is a long time commitment, and is inevitably mono or bilingual.
>
> Sam
> (who loves the current Wikimanias, and thinks they should continue! but
> doesn't think they are the pinnacle of what movement-gatherings could be)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
>> That's most helpful, thank you both.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Pharos 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Ellie and Chris, this historical experience should be very
>>> helpful
>>> for future discussions!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Pharos
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Schilling <
>>> cschill...@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hey folks,
>>> >
>>> > Ellie has put together a summarized budget including revenue and
>>> expenses
>>> > from Wikimania 2014 in London[1] and Wikimania 2015[2], which I've gone
>>> > ahead and posted to the summary pages of these conferences on meta.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Chris
>>> >
>>> > [1] 
>>> > [2] 
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Klein 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Itzik writes:
>>> > >
>>> > > > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great if
>>> the
>>> > > WMF and the local team will share the costs.
>>> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Budget
>>> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-19 Thread Ellie Young
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Thanks, it is a step in the right direction indeed. Although a bit more
> breakdown would be helpful,


I am working on that


> I'm guessing this also highly fluctuates year
> by year.




> Some observations:
>
> A huge amount of money goes into flying WMF around the world (321k resp.
> 383k), which doesn't even take into account (I'm assuming) all the hours
> invested into it.
>

The expenses related to staff time to attend and other staff support within
the Foundation is
not accounted for here.  (We have included my time, and contract staff
support that we pay to
assist the local team.)


> I'm assuming 'donations' includes sponsorships. That amount is less than I
> would have expected/hoped.


Not sure what you mean by 'donations'.   Donors to WMF do support Wikimania
since we
heavily subsidize the event (registration fees are VERY low and don't cover
the costs... that has
been a policy to keep it very affordable.Sponsorships are from
corporate sponsors
like ask.com, google, wikihow, etc.   These relationships are managed by me
 The local
host team also is involved in trying to get sponsorships, which is often
very difficult.  I'd
welcome more suggestions and help in finding more sponsors.


> Registration income is low, as expected (the
> burden would just be moved to a different part of our movement: the
> community)
>
> 'wikimania direct' is quite expensive, to be honest, and much more than I
> would have expected. However, it does include catering, which is always an
> expensive chunk (5days * 1000 people will even at a quite low 30 dollar per
> day easily give 150k, not even counting the parties etc).
>

Catering is usually our highest direct cost.  In London Wikimania '14, it
was the rental of
the Barbican Centre venue.


>
> Many of these costs would still exist if you split the event up in multiple
> events spread out. WMF would still want to fly everywhere (board has to
> meet anyway, WMF staff wants to engage anyway, committees have to meet
> somewhere), catering won't be much cheaper if spread over multiple events,
> and don't underestimate the manpower it would take to organise all those
> events - relatively it may be even more.
>

I do think we could consider some different models for how we produce
conferences
that would be more reasonable cost-wise.  And yes, there might be
additional expense
for staffing, but this could be offset  depending on the format, location
and size
of the conference.

>
> So looking at these figures, I can agree that it should be possible to do
> it for less, I'm less certain though whether the proposed splitting up
> would significantly reduce the total costs for everything that is included
> here.
>

Maybe we should do the "experiment" as suggested and see!


>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
> > That's most helpful, thank you both.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Pharos 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Ellie and Chris, this historical experience should be very
> > helpful
> > > for future discussions!
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Pharos
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Schilling <
> > cschill...@wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey folks,
> > > >
> > > > Ellie has put together a summarized budget including revenue and
> > expenses
> > > > from Wikimania 2014 in London[1] and Wikimania 2015[2], which I've
> gone
> > > > ahead and posted to the summary pages of these conferences on meta.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > [1] 
> > > > [2] 
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Klein 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Itzik writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great
> if
> > > the
> > > > > WMF and the local team will share the costs.
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Budget
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015/Budget
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something, but it's strange that such discussion
> > takes
> > > > > place without a real budget breakdown.
> > > > > > To summarize 2 huge event to "1$ million USD" does not make
> sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed 1million%.  It would be important to see a rough cost
> > > breakdown, &
> > > > > compare that to the best-budgeted Wikimanias.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> polime...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2016-02-10 6:06 GMT+01:00 Samuel Klein :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > FUDCons
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also it is hard to compare Wikimanias with FUDCons as it is
> > > > > > a) much  smaller (usually bo more than 200 attendees)
> > > > > > b) divided by 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Gayle Karen Young
I know, Dan, and your commitment and willingness to look at what is amazing
and holding WMF together, your personal decision to seek ways out of a
victim mentality and looking forward, is also absolutely critical right
now.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Dan Andreescu
>
> People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its
> volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one
> can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes
> a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient.  I have been watching,
> even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go
> in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported
> and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain
> of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as
> being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is
> "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
>

I sincerely apologize for minimizing that pain, it was not my intention but
I can see how what I wrote can be seen this way.  This is not normal, and
even if it was normal, it would still be awful.

Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is
> permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to
> create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive,
> and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When
> that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to
> continually endure.
>

I again apologize, this time for not expanding on what I meant by *really*
matter.  The dysfunction of course *matters*.  It hurts a lot of people,
people I love, and that's why I can't just sit by idly.

I think I was trying to say that we can get past this.  That we're bigger
than this.  That our united voice is stronger than the dysfunction, by far.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Anna Stillwell
Delphine, you're a bad ass.
/a


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Delphine,
>
> many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're
> pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your
> specific concerns.
>
> I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want to
> sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything
> concrete to add.
>
> take care! :)
>
> dj
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard 
> wrote:
>
> > I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> > (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> > multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> > made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
> >
> > This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> > daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
> >
> > And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
> > is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
> > in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
> > admitting failure.
> >
> > I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
> > was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
> > When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
> > Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to
> > do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will
> > give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be
> > bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's
> > governance chaos.
> >
> > Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing
> > what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the
> > trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone
> > got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to
> > do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a
> > solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world,
> > and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us
> > recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to
> > that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that
> > our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective
> > core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy.
> > After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the
> > only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And
> > it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I
> > do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the
> > thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making
> > our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the
> > risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by
> > all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it
> > behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn
> > from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take
> > care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And
> > while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option,
> > I'm pretty sure that
> >
> > Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against
> > it, but the whole speech "we answer to 8 volunteers" which has
> > been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in
> > that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have
> > observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED
> > (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility"
> > still makes me cringe today).  I am questioning who feels "served"
> > today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody
> > represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
> >
> > Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever.
> > Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically.
> > Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An
> > inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to
> > the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different
> > constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart
> > the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective
> > body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as
> > individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is
> > so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes
> > nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because
> > their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people
> > they were close 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Anna Stillwell
For our multicultural context... that's a compliment of high order.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Delphine, you're a bad ass.
> /a
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Delphine,
>>
>> many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're
>> pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your
>> specific concerns.
>>
>> I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want
>> to
>> sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything
>> concrete to add.
>>
>> take care! :)
>>
>> dj
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
>> > (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
>> > multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
>> > made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
>> >
>> > This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
>> > daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
>> >
>> > And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
>> > is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
>> > in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
>> > admitting failure.
>> >
>> > I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
>> > was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
>> > When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
>> > Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to
>> > do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will
>> > give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be
>> > bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's
>> > governance chaos.
>> >
>> > Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing
>> > what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the
>> > trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone
>> > got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to
>> > do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a
>> > solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world,
>> > and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us
>> > recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to
>> > that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that
>> > our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective
>> > core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy.
>> > After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the
>> > only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And
>> > it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I
>> > do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the
>> > thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making
>> > our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the
>> > risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by
>> > all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it
>> > behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn
>> > from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take
>> > care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And
>> > while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option,
>> > I'm pretty sure that
>> >
>> > Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against
>> > it, but the whole speech "we answer to 8 volunteers" which has
>> > been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in
>> > that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have
>> > observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED
>> > (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility"
>> > still makes me cringe today).  I am questioning who feels "served"
>> > today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody
>> > represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
>> >
>> > Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever.
>> > Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically.
>> > Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An
>> > inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to
>> > the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different
>> > constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart
>> > the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective
>> > body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as
>> > individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
Hi Delphine,

many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're
pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your
specific concerns.

I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want to
sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything
concrete to add.

take care! :)

dj

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
>
> This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
>
> And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
> is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
> in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
> admitting failure.
>
> I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
> was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
> When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
> Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to
> do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will
> give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be
> bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's
> governance chaos.
>
> Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing
> what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the
> trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone
> got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to
> do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a
> solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world,
> and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us
> recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to
> that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that
> our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective
> core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy.
> After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the
> only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And
> it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I
> do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the
> thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making
> our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the
> risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by
> all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it
> behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn
> from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take
> care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And
> while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option,
> I'm pretty sure that
>
> Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against
> it, but the whole speech "we answer to 8 volunteers" which has
> been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in
> that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have
> observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED
> (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility"
> still makes me cringe today).  I am questioning who feels "served"
> today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody
> represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
>
> Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever.
> Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically.
> Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An
> inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to
> the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different
> constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart
> the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective
> body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as
> individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is
> so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes
> nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because
> their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people
> they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table
> were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle
> it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed
> at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who
> takes the blows).
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Delphine Ménard
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
(due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.

This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.

And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
admitting failure.

I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to
do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will
give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be
bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's
governance chaos.

Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing
what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the
trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone
got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to
do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a
solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world,
and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us
recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to
that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that
our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective
core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy.
After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the
only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And
it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I
do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the
thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making
our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the
risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by
all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it
behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn
from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take
care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And
while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option,
I'm pretty sure that

Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against
it, but the whole speech "we answer to 8 volunteers" which has
been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in
that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have
observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED
(your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility"
still makes me cringe today).  I am questioning who feels "served"
today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody
represents anyone, they're only "selected"...

Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever.
Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically.
Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An
inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to
the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different
constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart
the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective
body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as
individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is
so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes
nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because
their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people
they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table
were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle
it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed
at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who
takes the blows).

Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to
develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a
risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of
the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys,
we're all in this together, let us work together to be better,
together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that
has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out.
I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they
owe and own the Foundation at 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Rodrigo Padula
Hello Chico,

The mail goal of that discussion is to see similar cases around the globe and 
evaluate the potential impact on the Wikimedia projects.

That info is very important for future proposals and initiatives like that one 
proposed on pt.wiki.

After so many discussion and comments regarding Facebook and #freebasics, that 
discussion is relevant and very important for the Wikimedia Movement, IMHO!

Rodrigo Padula
Coordenador de Projetos
Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
http://www.wikimedia.org.br
21 99326-0558




 Em Sex, 19 Fev 2016 12:32:20 -0200 Chico 
Venanciochicocvenan...@gmail.com escreveu  

Rodrigo,

I really don't mean to be negative, but the appropriate forum to discuss
the merits of the decision is in the topic open in wikipt about it. About
the form, using sitenotice for external social media reach, I can see a
reasoning to debate this here, but discussing if it is/will be effective
seems out place. This decision should be, and seemly will continue to be, a
community decision.
Excuse-me if I read too much into the message.

Best regards,
Chico Venancio
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Anna Stillwell
Ori,

Your email was spot on. And it is so refreshing to hear someone speak the
truth about who we are as staff.

In my time running Org Dev, I saw incredible talent here at the Foundation,
across departments, including members of the C-team. And as the situation
has become progressively more chaotic, I've seen *everybody* level up. I've
seen individual contributors and managers take on new challenges, new
departments, grow their skills, learn how to trust one another and have
each other's back, and find ways to grapple with our most important
problems. In the absence of an org strategy and to side step the chaos and
omnipresent conflicting information and confusion on the ground,
departments have been getting together and charting their own way. I am
inspired by the work I've seen my colleagues do *in spite of the
dysfunction at the top*.

And as far as our "toxic culture"... don't believe the hype. I've actually
seen our collective dialogue *improve* in the last two years and in the
last year I've seen my colleagues show tremendous restraint in incredibly
chaotic times of intense stress. Don't get my wrong, we have work to do,
but we're heading in the right direction.

I don't at all believe it when I hear that there is not enough leadership
at the Foundation. *I see leaders across this organization.* *I see
untapped talent everywhere I look* that is finding ways to contribute
despite land mines, roadblocks, and seriously hard-core motivational
zappers everywhere.

My colleagues inspire me. And thank you so much for sharing that wise
perspective, Ori. It made my week.

Rock on,

/a



On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Thank you so much for chiming in, Gayle. This means a lot.
> בתאריך 19 בפבר׳ 2016 10:17,‏ "Gayle Karen Young" 
> כתב:
>
> > People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and
> its
> > volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no
> one
> > can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues
> goes
> > a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient.  I have been
> watching,
> > even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to
> go
> > in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt
> unsupported
> > and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain
> > of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as
> > being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is
> > "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
> >
> > Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is
> > permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation
> to
> > create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive,
> > and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When
> > that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people
> to
> > continually endure.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dan Andreescu <
> dandree...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
> > top.
> > > > If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
> > people
> > > > from Engineering won't be long now.
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope you're wrong, Ori.  I hope people have the presence of mind,
> like
> > > you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things
> out
> > > among each other.  And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does
> > not
> > > *really* matter.  People screw up, but this is a movement.  And this
> > > movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
> > >
> > > I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection
> and
> > > commitment to the amazing community we serve.
> > >
> > > If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the
> > > reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction.
> Just
> > to
> > > be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this
> email, I
> > > just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so
> > much.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Chico Venancio
Rodrigo,

I really don't mean to be negative, but the appropriate forum to discuss
the merits of the decision is in the topic open in wikipt about it. About
the form, using sitenotice for external social media reach, I can see a
reasoning to debate this here, but discussing if it is/will be effective
seems out place. This decision should be, and seemly will continue to be, a
community decision.
Excuse-me if I read too much into the message.

Best regards,
Chico Venancio
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Nikola Kalchev
Hello Tomasz and everyone else

according to https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaBG.htm the
number of active editors has raised by 19% in January, but it might as well
be because there were Christmas holidays in December. I do not believe we
have enough data to make a good quantitative analysis.

Something else we organised was a weekly "wikigame" – we asked a question
on social media and Wikipedia every day and the person who answered the
most questions correctly got a book for up to 15 Euro (the price of a
pretty good paperback edition of books, which can be used as sources). That
lead to a few new editors and a few new articles. I believe social media
have a potential and we will see that during CEE Spring. The themes were
Olympic games, football, art, history of Bulgaria and geography.

Best regards,
Nikola


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:47 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Indonesian Wikipedia has used site notice to link to their Facebook
> group, Twitter, and Instagram for years.
>
> Their facebook page has 97,236 likes.  https://www.facebook.com/id.wiki
> posts often get 100 likes
>
> compare with Wikimedia Commons page, with 2,793 likes, and posts
> usually attract < 10 likes.
> https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
> > Hey Rodrigo,
> >
> > I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past
> to
> > point people to facebook.
> >
> > Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
> > think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the
> very
> > different privacy policy of facebook.
> >
> > Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I
> would
> > be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
> > discuss this further.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > --
> > Seddon
> >
> > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> > rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello fellows!
> >>
> >> Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> >> discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
> >> Page on site Notice [1]
> >>
> >> That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> lot
> >> of local support.
> >>
> >> The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> Wikipedia
> >> through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> from
> >> pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> pt.wikipedia.
> >>
> >> I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> >> kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in
> other
> >> wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Rodrigo Padula
> >> Coordenador de Projetos
> >> Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> >> http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> >> +55 21 99326-0558
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Candidates - Affiliate Selected members of the WMF Board

2016-02-19 Thread Lane Rasberry
Risker, SJ, Pete, and others -

Help! This election is what people make of it. It might be the case that
many people concerned about Wikimedia governance do not even realize what
is at stake in this election. There has recently been a lot of discussion
about the board of trustees. In this election, there will be turnover of
two seats. If anyone has ideas for getting chapters more involved in the
election then please get anyone involved in any way that you can.

SJ in response to your questions

   1. So far as I know no one has contacted chapters directly. I would like
   for every chapter to take responsibility for contacting a few others and
   confirming that they are engaged in the election. It would be difficult to
   centrally manage communication with everyone. Do you know anyone at any
   chapter that you could ask to have their chapter discuss the election with
   a few others?
   2. I do not expect anyone to contribute to the election questions.
   Anyone may. Last election there were four candidates and only about 2/3 of
   chapters voted, so perhaps the votes were cast by personal connections. My
   personal perspective is that a lively election discussion has not
   historically happened. One could happen this time - if you can encourage
   anyone to start one then please do so.

Anne -

   1. Yes there are three white males on the election committee. If you
   identify someone else who wants the role then please have them contact me
   and I will advocate that the election committee give them my position if
   you think diversity is useful. There is nothing that I am doing in this
   role that I could not do outside of it, and I feel that any non-white male
   in this role would get no particular privilege to do anything they could
   not otherwise, but just the same, consider my position open for anyone who
   wants it. I would coach my replacement.
   2. I care less about the characteristics of candidates and more about
   the characteristics of voting organizations. I want every organization with
   a vote to vote, and if you can think of a way to encourage more
   organizations to vote, then share. I want the inactive chapters to vote
   even if they have not had wiki-engagement for years. Election success from
   my perspective is the highest possible vote rate and the most communication
   among chapters to encourage each other to vote and to discuss how they will
   vote. If possible, I would like every voting organization to give a
   statement describing how they decided their vote, but that is left to the
   chapter to share as they like and I think it would be unfair to pressure
   anyone to do this. In some cases voting might mean one person cast the vote
   without consulting with others, and in other cases it might mean that there
   was an effort to get opinions from a large chapter membership. Whatever the
   case, I want all organizations to vote, and I would prefer that chapters
   look to each other and think about everyone else's vote process.

Everyone - feel free to speak up if you want election assistance!

yours,




On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> Lane writes:
> > Can you please contact any Wikimedia chapter and ask them to request
> > nominations?
>
> Ok.  I take it they have already been emailed directly?  And each chapter
> can handle this however they like?
>
> > Get any chapter to make any request for whatever kind of person they
> > would nominate, then maybe they can call for whatever they want.
>
> Where should they do this – on Meta somewhere, on this list, on the private
> chapters mailing list? Is there somewhere they can see wishlists others
> have proposed?
>
> This questions page does not shed much light; who is expected to contribute
> to it?
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions
>
>
>
> ===
> Risker writes:
> > Well, I was interpreting SJ's question to be directed to everyone who is
> > involved in this election, not just the three election coordinators.
>
> Yes.  And +1 to your other comments.
>
> I think the selection process would benefit from the affiliates considering
> & sharing what is on their wishlist for candidates, before nominations are
> closed.  If the facilitators can help make this happen, all the better.
>
>
> ===
> > Ask questions everywhere. This is a wiki election and should proceed in
> > wiki style.
>
> ++ Good, that's why I asked in the first place.  Feel free to migrate this
> discussion elsewhere.
>
> SJ
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Rodrigo Padula
During the WLE an WLM 2015 we created and published some paid campaigns inside 
Facebook to reach more people and bring people from Facebook to our contest's 
pages inside Wikipedia.

IMHO that it's a good approach, but add a direct link inside wikipedia to 
commercial sites/social networks are not a good idea, mainly thinking about 
privacy, net neutrality and compatibility with our movement mission. In that 
way we are redirecting people from Wikipedia to external sites.

The other problem is, don't matter if we have 5.000 or 1.000.000 of likes in a 
Facebook page, to reach that public we always have to pay Facebook ads to 
increase reach.

The Facebook is always cutting post's reach to stimulate publishers to pay more 
money to reach more people.

Basically we reach more people and get more views and clicks adding USD$10,00 
to a Facebook post than having a page with 100.000 likes.

Including, offer an option to promote paid ads only to people that liked your 
page and their friends.

So, it's getting hard to grow on Facebook in a organic way, don't matter how 
many likes or friends do you have.

Rodrigo Padula
Coordenador de Projetos
Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
http://www.wikimedia.org.br
21 99326-0558




 Em Sex, 19 Fev 2016 09:07:16 -0200 Asaf 
Bartovabar...@wikimedia.org escreveu  

The Macedonian community has also had success attracting attention to their
social media channels via Facebook etc. links on sitenotice for a while. I
believe they reached a staggering number of likes (~35000 was it?), from
next to nothing. Those social media channels seem to have been used to
considerable effect in drawing attention and attracting contributors to
events like WLM.

This was discussed at the Wikimedia Central and Eastern European Meeting
2014. Notes from that session are still on Etherpad[1].

CCing Bojan for potential additional details.

 A.

[1] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/ceem14-pr


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 Nikola - but does it bring any added value to Wikipedia? Does number of
 active editors in Bulgarian Wikipedia increased because of it? Can you see
 it in Wikipedia statics? IMHO it is the only thing which might legitimate
 such an action.






 Ten e-mail został wysłany z komputera wolnego od wirusów chronionego przez
 Avast.
 www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email;
 #DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2

 2016-02-19 1:41 GMT+01:00 Nikola Kalchev nikola.kalc...@gmail.com:

  Hello Rodrigo,
 
  on Bulgarian Wikipedia we put a text asking readers to like our 
Facebook
  page, our Twitter and Google+ accounts, as well to visit our blog [1].
 The
  Facebook likes went up from 1923 to 5381 in a month, 126 people 
followed
 us
  on Twitter (virtually nobody did it before that), 123 people followed 
us
 on
  Google+ and the reader numbers on our blog went significantly up (I 
don't
  have the data right now). Nobody in the community objected to this 
and we
  would probably do it again some day. We decided to remove it after a
 month,
  because we saw that the number of new likes declined over time.
 
  Best regards,
  Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Лорд_Бъмбъри;)
  Wikimedians of Bulgaria
 
  [1]
 
 
 
https://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8:Sitenoticeoldid=7097975
  (it says "Like the page of Wikipedia in Bulgarian on Facebook
  https://www.facebook.com/WikipediaBG;. You can also follow us 
on
 Twitter
  https://twitter.com/WikipediaBG; and Google+
  https://plus.google.com/103033788118241359476/posts; as well 
as visit
 our
  blog http://blog.wikimedia.org/;).
 
  This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by 
Avast.
  www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email;
  #DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
 
  On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula 
  rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br wrote:
 
   Hello fellows!
  
   Since the end of the last year some contributors from 
pt.wikipedia are
   discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our
 Facebook
   Page on site Notice [1]
  
   That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He 
received a
  lot
   of local support.
  
   The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
  Wikipedia
   through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting 
users
  from
   pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
  pt.wikipedia.
  
   I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and 
if this
   kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published 
in
 other
   wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
  
   [1]
  
 
 
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
  
   Best regards
  
   Rodrigo Padula
   Coordenador de Projetos
   Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Joseph Seddon
Certainly agree with you Craig. I just generally wasn't aware of those
examples which do set a precedent.

I will add documenting all of the different community community uses of
SiteNotice to my list of things to do. :)

Seddon

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> While I appreciate these concerns, I think that the most suitable people to
> determine whether this is appropriate for the Portuguese Wikipedia are the
> users of the Portuguese Wikipedia.  Perhaps with a veto by the WMF Legal
> Team if there's some terms of service related reason this can't happen.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 19 February 2016 at 16:28, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
> > Hey Rodrigo,
> >
> > I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past
> to
> > point people to facebook.
> >
> > Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
> > think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the
> very
> > different privacy policy of facebook.
> >
> > Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I
> would
> > be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
> > discuss this further.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > --
> > Seddon
> >
> > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> > rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello fellows!
> > >
> > > Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> > > discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our
> Facebook
> > > Page on site Notice [1]
> > >
> > > That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> > lot
> > > of local support.
> > >
> > > The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> > Wikipedia
> > > through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> > from
> > > pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> > pt.wikipedia.
> > >
> > > I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> > > kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in
> other
> > > wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Rodrigo Padula
> > > Coordenador de Projetos
> > > Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> > > http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> > > +55 21 99326-0558
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Joseph Seddon
I stand corrected on all fronts and now know a few examples :D Personally
I'd say base it off of the azerbaijani sitenotice, and if you have multiple
social media presences include them like the indonesian sitenotice's to
remain platform agnostic but avoid the larger kick in the page.

Seddon

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, 梁忠明  wrote:

> I also noticed the practice in idwiki to promote Facebook page of the
> Wikipedia in question through site notice. During this year’s discussion of
> Chinese Wikipedia’s annual strategy, One of our proposed aims is to promote
> outreach through the Net. I once had a plan to promote our Facebook pages
> (now diversified roughly by regions, no unified Facebook pages for us),
> twitter, weibo and IRC channels (there’s a renaissance of IRC in zhwp
> during the past year) through a site notice. Though our twitter is just a
> feed of our items on OTD, FA, GA and DYK columns, and Weibo account, which
> once accepted funds from IEG, is dormant since the last Wikipedia blockage
> by Peking (thus weakens the effect to absorb more editors). The plan is
> temporarily on hold. I am thinking that there’re still many of the members
> of Chinese community do not have an awareness on Net neutrality, so even I
> do not make any consultation on this plan, I think this plan will be passed
> with no objections (to make it more easy, generally requests to put up
> particular site notices are usually not noticed by ordinary users).
>
> Best wishes,
> Leung Chung-ming (User:春卷柯南)
>
> > Craig Franklin  於 2016年2月19日 下午8:31 寫道:
> >
> > While I appreciate these concerns, I think that the most suitable people
> to
> > determine whether this is appropriate for the Portuguese Wikipedia are
> the
> > users of the Portuguese Wikipedia.  Perhaps with a veto by the WMF Legal
> > Team if there's some terms of service related reason this can't happen.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 19 February 2016 at 16:28, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Rodrigo,
> >>
> >> I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past
> to
> >> point people to facebook.
> >>
> >> Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
> >> think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the
> very
> >> different privacy policy of facebook.
> >>
> >> Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I
> would
> >> be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
> >> discuss this further.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> --
> >> Seddon
> >>
> >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> >> rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello fellows!
> >>>
> >>> Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> >>> discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our
> Facebook
> >>> Page on site Notice [1]
> >>>
> >>> That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> >> lot
> >>> of local support.
> >>>
> >>> The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> >> Wikipedia
> >>> through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> >> from
> >>> pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> >> pt.wikipedia.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> >>> kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in
> other
> >>> wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>>
> >>> Rodrigo Padula
> >>> Coordenador de Projetos
> >>> Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> >>> http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> >>> +55 21 99326-0558
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> New messages to: 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
> >> New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread 梁忠明
I also noticed the practice in idwiki to promote Facebook page of the Wikipedia 
in question through site notice. During this year’s discussion of Chinese 
Wikipedia’s annual strategy, One of our proposed aims is to promote outreach 
through the Net. I once had a plan to promote our Facebook pages (now 
diversified roughly by regions, no unified Facebook pages for us), twitter, 
weibo and IRC channels (there’s a renaissance of IRC in zhwp during the past 
year) through a site notice. Though our twitter is just a feed of our items on 
OTD, FA, GA and DYK columns, and Weibo account, which once accepted funds from 
IEG, is dormant since the last Wikipedia blockage by Peking (thus weakens the 
effect to absorb more editors). The plan is temporarily on hold. I am thinking 
that there’re still many of the members of Chinese community do not have an 
awareness on Net neutrality, so even I do not make any consultation on this 
plan, I think this plan will be passed with no objections (to make it more 
easy, generally requests to put up particular site notices are usually not 
noticed by ordinary users).

Best wishes,
Leung Chung-ming (User:春卷柯南)

> Craig Franklin  於 2016年2月19日 下午8:31 寫道:
> 
> While I appreciate these concerns, I think that the most suitable people to
> determine whether this is appropriate for the Portuguese Wikipedia are the
> users of the Portuguese Wikipedia.  Perhaps with a veto by the WMF Legal
> Team if there's some terms of service related reason this can't happen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Craig
> 
> On 19 February 2016 at 16:28, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> 
>> Hey Rodrigo,
>> 
>> I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past to
>> point people to facebook.
>> 
>> Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
>> think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the very
>> different privacy policy of facebook.
>> 
>> Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I would
>> be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
>> discuss this further.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> --
>> Seddon
>> 
>> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
>> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
>> rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello fellows!
>>> 
>>> Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
>>> discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
>>> Page on site Notice [1]
>>> 
>>> That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
>> lot
>>> of local support.
>>> 
>>> The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
>> Wikipedia
>>> through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
>> from
>>> pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
>> pt.wikipedia.
>>> 
>>> I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
>>> kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other
>>> wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> 
>>> Rodrigo Padula
>>> Coordenador de Projetos
>>> Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
>>> http://www.wikimedia.org.br
>>> +55 21 99326-0558
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: 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
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Craig Franklin
While I appreciate these concerns, I think that the most suitable people to
determine whether this is appropriate for the Portuguese Wikipedia are the
users of the Portuguese Wikipedia.  Perhaps with a veto by the WMF Legal
Team if there's some terms of service related reason this can't happen.

Cheers,
Craig

On 19 February 2016 at 16:28, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey Rodrigo,
>
> I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past to
> point people to facebook.
>
> Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
> think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the very
> different privacy policy of facebook.
>
> Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I would
> be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
> discuss this further.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
>
> > Hello fellows!
> >
> > Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> > discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
> > Page on site Notice [1]
> >
> > That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> lot
> > of local support.
> >
> > The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> Wikipedia
> > through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> from
> > pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> pt.wikipedia.
> >
> > I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> > kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other
> > wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Rodrigo Padula
> > Coordenador de Projetos
> > Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> > http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> > +55 21 99326-0558
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
Indonesian Wikipedia has used site notice to link to their Facebook
group, Twitter, and Instagram for years.

Their facebook page has 97,236 likes.  https://www.facebook.com/id.wiki
posts often get 100 likes

compare with Wikimedia Commons page, with 2,793 likes, and posts
usually attract < 10 likes.
https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> Hey Rodrigo,
>
> I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past to
> point people to facebook.
>
> Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
> think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the very
> different privacy policy of facebook.
>
> Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I would
> be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
> discuss this further.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
>
>> Hello fellows!
>>
>> Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
>> discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
>> Page on site Notice [1]
>>
>> That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a lot
>> of local support.
>>
>> The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access Wikipedia
>> through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users from
>> pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on pt.wikipedia.
>>
>> I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
>> kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other
>> wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Rodrigo Padula
>> Coordenador de Projetos
>> Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
>> http://www.wikimedia.org.br
>> +55 21 99326-0558
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
John Vandenberg

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Asaf Bartov
The Macedonian community has also had success attracting attention to their
social media channels via Facebook etc. links on sitenotice for a while.  I
believe they reached a staggering number of likes (~35000 was it?), from
next to nothing.  Those social media channels seem to have been used to
considerable effect in drawing attention and attracting contributors to
events like WLM.

This was discussed at the Wikimedia Central and Eastern European Meeting
2014.  Notes from that session are still on Etherpad[1].

CCing Bojan for potential additional details.

   A.

[1] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/ceem14-pr


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Nikola - but does it bring any added value to Wikipedia? Does number of
> active editors in Bulgarian Wikipedia increased because of it? Can you see
> it in Wikipedia statics? IMHO it is the only thing which might legitimate
> such an action.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ten e-mail został wysłany z komputera wolnego od wirusów chronionego przez
> Avast.
> www.avast.com 
> <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> 2016-02-19 1:41 GMT+01:00 Nikola Kalchev :
>
> > Hello Rodrigo,
> >
> > on Bulgarian Wikipedia we put a text asking readers to like our Facebook
> > page, our Twitter and Google+ accounts, as well to visit our blog [1].
> The
> > Facebook likes went up from 1923 to 5381 in a month, 126 people followed
> us
> > on Twitter (virtually nobody did it before that), 123 people followed us
> on
> > Google+ and the reader numbers on our blog went significantly up (I don't
> > have the data right now). Nobody in the community objected to this and we
> > would probably do it again some day. We decided to remove it after a
> month,
> > because we saw that the number of new likes declined over time.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри
> > )
> > Wikimedians of Bulgaria
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8:Sitenotice=7097975
> > (it says "Like the page of Wikipedia in Bulgarian on Facebook
> > . You can also follow us on
> Twitter
> >  and Google+
> >  as well as visit
> our
> > blog ").
> >
> > This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> > www.avast.com 
> > <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> > rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello fellows!
> > >
> > > Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> > > discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our
> Facebook
> > > Page on site Notice [1]
> > >
> > > That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> > lot
> > > of local support.
> > >
> > > The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> > Wikipedia
> > > through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> > from
> > > pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> > pt.wikipedia.
> > >
> > > I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> > > kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in
> other
> > > wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Rodrigo Padula
> > > Coordenador de Projetos
> > > Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> > > http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> > > +55 21 99326-0558
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
בתאריך 19 בפבר׳ 2016 09:31,‏ "Ben Creasy"  כתב:

>
> OK, in terms of problems, staff are saying that it's Lila. Do you want
them to
> be more specific in a public mailing list about how and where she has
> disappointed them? That seems like an awkward situation for Lila.

... And for the staff, no matter how many times people repeat that voicing
the criticism is safe.

> I noticed in a later post you pointed towards the Human Resources
Committee as
> tackling the problem. This committee is composed of Jimbo, Patricio, and
Guy
> Kawasaki. So: the guy who called James, the one who was trying to help
staff, a
> "fucking liar" (if I recall correctly), the Chair of the board who
removed the
> staff's friend, and who can be held most directly responsible for the
board's
> lack of transparency and actions as the elected leader of the board, and
Guy,
> who I understand is quite influential in the board room, but whose last
> communication to us was to express support for Arnnon without knowing how
to
> sign his wiki username.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can recall, this was not
just Guy Kawasaki's last communication, but his _only_ communication to...
pretty much whatever any Wikimedian can call "us".
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
Thank you so much for chiming in, Gayle. This means a lot.
בתאריך 19 בפבר׳ 2016 10:17,‏ "Gayle Karen Young"  כתב:

> People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its
> volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one
> can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes
> a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient.  I have been watching,
> even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go
> in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported
> and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain
> of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as
> being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is
> "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
>
> Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is
> permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to
> create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive,
> and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When
> that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to
> continually endure.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dan Andreescu 
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
> top.
> > > If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
> people
> > > from Engineering won't be long now.
> >
> >
> > I hope you're wrong, Ori.  I hope people have the presence of mind, like
> > you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things out
> > among each other.  And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does
> not
> > *really* matter.  People screw up, but this is a movement.  And this
> > movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
> >
> > I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection and
> > commitment to the amazing community we serve.
> >
> > If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the
> > reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction.  Just
> to
> > be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this email, I
> > just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so
> much.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
Nikola - but does it bring any added value to Wikipedia? Does number of
active editors in Bulgarian Wikipedia increased because of it? Can you see
it in Wikipedia statics? IMHO it is the only thing which might legitimate
such an action.






Ten e-mail został wysłany z komputera wolnego od wirusów chronionego przez
Avast.
www.avast.com 
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2016-02-19 1:41 GMT+01:00 Nikola Kalchev :

> Hello Rodrigo,
>
> on Bulgarian Wikipedia we put a text asking readers to like our Facebook
> page, our Twitter and Google+ accounts, as well to visit our blog [1]. The
> Facebook likes went up from 1923 to 5381 in a month, 126 people followed us
> on Twitter (virtually nobody did it before that), 123 people followed us on
> Google+ and the reader numbers on our blog went significantly up (I don't
> have the data right now). Nobody in the community objected to this and we
> would probably do it again some day. We decided to remove it after a month,
> because we saw that the number of new likes declined over time.
>
> Best regards,
> Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри
> )
> Wikimedians of Bulgaria
>
> [1]
>
> https://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8:Sitenotice=7097975
> (it says "Like the page of Wikipedia in Bulgarian on Facebook
> . You can also follow us on Twitter
>  and Google+
>  as well as visit our
> blog ").
>
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com 
> <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
>
> > Hello fellows!
> >
> > Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> > discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
> > Page on site Notice [1]
> >
> > That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> lot
> > of local support.
> >
> > The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> Wikipedia
> > through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> from
> > pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> pt.wikipedia.
> >
> > I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> > kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other
> > wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Rodrigo Padula
> > Coordenador de Projetos
> > Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> > http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> > +55 21 99326-0558
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Yury Bulka

Shani  writes:

> Yury, this is a very important example, but indeed off-topic. It deserves a
> separate thread, but not before addressing the current main crisis, which
> all others stem from.
I agree. This was just a random example of a "side-effect" of the
crisis.

Best,
Yury

>
> On 19 Feb 2016 01:46, "Yury Bulka"  wrote:
>
>> There are certain things that affect many volunteers
>> directly. A slightly off-topic example:
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59608#1637250
>>
>> The fact that:
>> > "the WMF education team has no engineering resources"
>>
>> ...affects volunteers.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Yury Bulka
>> (Wikimedia Ukraine)
>>
>> Craig Franklin  writes:
>>
>> > Yaroslav,
>> >
>> > You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly.  The problem
>> is
>> > that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from
>> > "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and
>> > negative attention from the mainstream press".  If there is too much of
>> the
>> > latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even
>> if
>> > Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling
>> > money.  As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant
>> choices
>> > have to be made around budget.
>> >
>> > So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most
>> > seriously, albeit indirectly.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Craig
>> >
>> >
>> > On 19 February 2016 at 07:52, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that
>> if
>> >> things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or
>> money
>> >> runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue
>> >> resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have
>> ten
>> >> active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are
>> >> running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per
>> >> day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will
>> >> probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I
>> >> die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation
>> is
>> >> unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to
>> all
>> >> kinds of events.
>> >>
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: 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
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Mardetanha
facebook has been on site-notice on azwiki https://az.wikipedia.org for
about year I think


Mardetanha

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Hey Rodrigo,
>
> I don't know of any example where Site Notice has been used in the past to
> point people to facebook.
>
> Although the intentions behind what is being proposed are good ones, I
> think there are probably issues that surround neutrality and with the very
> different privacy policy of facebook.
>
> Based on those things alone it is not something I would recommend. I would
> be happy to follow up with you further off list if you would like to
> discuss this further.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
> rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:
>
> > Hello fellows!
> >
> > Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> > discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
> > Page on site Notice [1]
> >
> > That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a
> lot
> > of local support.
> >
> > The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access
> Wikipedia
> > through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users
> from
> > pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on
> pt.wikipedia.
> >
> > I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> > kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other
> > wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Rodrigo Padula
> > Coordenador de Projetos
> > Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> > http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> > +55 21 99326-0558
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the Board's HR Committee doing to stem the tide of staff resignations?

2016-02-19 Thread Milos Rancic
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>>  We have started with an engagement survey, and organizational facilitator
>> analysis. More and more current input can be provided by Patricio or others
>> from the Board's HR Committee, but there is also a lot of work done by the
>> HR department, under its new leadership.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. There is familiar story about Ark B, so
giving just a random conversation from the Chapter 31:

"So what else have you done?" he inquired after the celebrations had died down.
"We have started a culture," said the marketing girl.
"Oh yes?" said Ford.
"Yes. One of our film producers is already making a fascinating
documentary about the indigenous cavemen of the area."
"They're not cavemen."
"They look like cavemen."
"Do they live in caves?"
"Well ..."
"They live in huts."
"Perhaps they're having their caves redecorated," called out a wag
from the crowd.

-- 
Milos

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

2016-02-19 Thread Nikola Kalchev
Hello Rodrigo,

on Bulgarian Wikipedia we put a text asking readers to like our Facebook
page, our Twitter and Google+ accounts, as well to visit our blog [1]. The
Facebook likes went up from 1923 to 5381 in a month, 126 people followed us
on Twitter (virtually nobody did it before that), 123 people followed us on
Google+ and the reader numbers on our blog went significantly up (I don't
have the data right now). Nobody in the community objected to this and we
would probably do it again some day. We decided to remove it after a month,
because we saw that the number of new likes declined over time.

Best regards,
Nikola (User:Лорд Бъмбъри
)
Wikimedians of Bulgaria

[1]
https://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8:Sitenotice=7097975
(it says "Like the page of Wikipedia in Bulgarian on Facebook
. You can also follow us on Twitter
 and Google+
 as well as visit our
blog ").

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com 
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Rodrigo Padula <
rodrigopad...@wikimedia.org.br> wrote:

> Hello fellows!
>
> Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are
> discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook
> Page on site Notice [1]
>
> That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a lot
> of local support.
>
> The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access Wikipedia
> through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users from
> pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on pt.wikipedia.
>
> I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this
> kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other
> wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
>
> [1]
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%C3%A1gina_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_em_portugu%C3%AAs_do_Facebook_no_sitenotice_%2825nov2015%29
>
> Best regards
>
> Rodrigo Padula
> Coordenador de Projetos
> Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
> http://www.wikimedia.org.br
> +55 21 99326-0558
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

Hi Craig, Amir, and Nat,

On 2016-02-19 00:13, Craig Franklin wrote:

Yaroslav,

You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly.  The 
problem is

that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from
"angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and
negative attention from the mainstream press".  If there is too much of 
the
latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even 
if

Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling
money.  As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant 
choices

have to be made around budget.

So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most
seriously, albeit indirectly.

Cheers,
Craig




Whereas you are absolutely right, I actually have two very simple 
points.


One is that in the big picture, servers were running ten years ago on a 
budget which is thousand times less than the current WMF budget. And 
unless someone screws up badly they would still be running in ten years 
from now. Most people use the servers to see content, and most of them 
want to look up the English Wikipedia. People who add this content - 
volunteers - are largely independent of the funding, and the vast 
majority of them do not even know that WMF exists. Sure, it would be 
very unfortunate to lose the development momentum, to lose GLAMS and 
similar things, but this is kind of luxury. Volunteers large live not 
because WMF screws up or because funding dries out; they leave because 
they burn out, move to a different period in their life, or, well, die. 
My point is that even if funding is severely reduced, it would be very 
unfortunate, but this is not yet the end of the world.


The second one refers to Leila's statement that she is more afraid for 
volunteers than for the staff. My point is that actually staff 
(including Leila herself) which suffer most from the ongoing disruption, 
and if one needs to protect someone (I am not sure it is needed) it 
should be staff, not volunteers.


For the record, I do not have any opinion on who is right and who is 
wrong here. I do not have enough information, and I do not have a habit 
making uninformed statements. Again, in the big picture this is 
irrelevant; what is relevant is that some disruption is going on, which 
definitely has an impact on the movement.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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