Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Gnangarra
in breaking up (spinning parts off) the WMF we run the risk of creating
silos of information, knowledge and disconnecting one speciality from
another preventing cross pollination of ideas and innovation. It also
breaks the collaborative core of the projects which has created what we
enjoy and at the heart of our volunteer driven successes.

The movement works because diverse group, diverse cultures and diverse
ideas are able to come together through a shared principle, when the
movement has issues its because of fragmentation, them vs us, or closed
cabals acting out their own desires past experienced shows our greatest
failures are when we act in isolation and secrecy.

Before spinning of parts or isolating programs from each other we must be
looking at ensuring that which has given us the greatest success and which
is at our heart the collaboration, the sharing, the diversity are not
disrupted because no matter how much is rebuilt the distrust will linger
long after the experiments have failed

On 20 March 2016 at 02:44, George Herbert  wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:41 AM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
> >
> > at the end it all boils down to
> > money. spending all money available and wanting more money never has
> > been a problem. if there is dissent it was always about who has the
> > say what the money is spent on, and where it is spent. i am convinced
> > if we get the responsibilities right, the dissent will stop, and the
> > output will be better.
> >
> > sizing organizations and distributing responsibilities on a global
> > scale seems to be a very difficult task, close to the soviet empire's
> > task to plan its next 5 years. one could argue to resolve it via
> > setting a financial targets, just as multinational companies do. two
> > simple long term key performance indicators might already do the trick
> > for the wikimedia movement: first "maximum 50% of the money is spent
> > on persons whose life depend financially on the movement", which is
> > employees, or long term contracting persons, organizations,
> > foundations, enterprises. and second, "50% of the money stays in the
> > country where it is donated." the rest will auto-organize, and
> > auto-change. finding intelligent spending for the rest of the 50%
> > should not be a too difficult task, there is sufficient universities
> > and students around the world who would be happy to compete for this
> > money. the success, means and outcome will change over time, in areas
> > and ways nobody can predict today. the 50% are a made up number, a
> > little bit influenced by public spending of 40% - 50% in many
> > industrialized countries nowadays. it seems people accept such a
> > ratio.
>
> I...  This line of thinking worries me.
>
> In Programming / IT / information companies, there are a number of well
> known examples of organizations with legendary ineffectiveness measured on
> a per dollar or per employee basis.
>
> Logic of "we will just control or manage the money flow" is focusing on
> the wrong end entirely.  We need organizations that are effective, and
> secondarily (for a host of reasons) which people enjoy working in.  Neither
> of those is a result of any accounting focused reform or management
> approach.
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-19 Thread
On 16 March 2016 at 12:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
...
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
...

There is no excuse for a $100m/year Foundation to endorse a trustee
who behaves so badly in public, and even worse in private. Nonsense
puffery about "free speech", does not suddenly make it acceptable for
Jimmy to gratuitously drop the f-bomb when brutally slagging off a
past board member in writing. This, hand-in-hand with political
distortions and what now appears a long history of blatant "untruths",
makes Jimmy Wales completely inappropriate to remain a WMF trustee for
the next 3 months, let alone the next 3 years.

Jimmy has a great career as a pundit, and many similar media
celebrities seem to be able to grow their profile and fees by behaving
badly and trashing people they have chosen to dislike. Good luck to
him, but let's stop promoting the myth that he in any way officially
speaks for the Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia volunteers or (in his
self-appointed role) Wikimedia employees.

P.S. Does anyone who reads this list know /exactly/ when and where
will we see the results of Jimmy Wales' interviews/workshops with WMF
employees, after his recent trip to S.F. acting as the default organ
of the WMF board of trustees; or should this now be forgotten like it
never happened?

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [OpenAccess] New Free Research Accounts via the Wikipedia Library

2016-03-19 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 17 March 2016 at 20:43, Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> Alexander Street (Educational videos and documentaries including PBS & BBC)
>   

Did this come about as a result of my conversation with them in Melbourne?

I ask because we're logging outcomes; but if so I'm very happy!

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

___
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] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons

2016-03-19 Thread Gilles Dubuc
Steinsplitter, if you're interested in reviving this, please have the
intellectual honesty of running the RfC again and publicizing it widely. As
others already pointed out, the context of that RfC is nothing like today.
Not only Media Viewer itself changed a lot, with many fixes based on direct
community feedback, but the very people who expressed their opinion in 2014
might have changed their views.

If anything, if you still get the same outcome now, you'll have a much
stronger case for what you're asking for.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> On Mar 14, 2016 23:47, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> > On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> > > On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
> > >> Ignoring a wide community
> > >> consensus is *always* a mistake.
> > >
> > > It is.  I never advocated otherwise.
> > >
> > > That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let
> > > alone a consensus of the actually impacted community.
> > >
> > > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> > You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you
> > could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than
> > putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already
> > established what it wanted.
>
> Marc just look at the German Wikipedia which recently voted for the switch
> on of visual editor. It was community driven and caused no stir.
>
> I really fail to understand that you guys always go down a confrontational
> path instead of inventing a solution so all users have the option to
> choose. Maybe a media tab or similar.
>
> Rupert
>
> Rupert
> ___
> 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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Erik Moeller
2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W :
> I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the best
> way would be to facilitate this conversation.
>
> Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for discussion?

Hi Pine,

Thanks for the comments! I wanted to start here to get a sense if
people are supportive of the idea(s) in general. In my experience a
listserv is good for kicking things around a bit before getting too
emotionally invested. ;-) And this list has a good cross-set of folks
with different backgrounds including WMF and affiliates. If there's a
general sense that this is worth exploring further, then I'd be more
than happy to help organize pages on Meta, e.g. to think about
specific spin-offs like the MediaWiki Foundation (if there isn't
already an extant proposal for it).

> On the WMF side, I'm wondering how this would fit into their annual
> planning. Their plan is supposed to be published on April 1. This
> discussion will need resources from WMF's end in the form of staff time,
> including Katherine's, as well as Board time. The required investment in
> the short term will be modest, but cumulatively through the year it may be
> significant, particularly if the discussions get momentum. So I'm wondering
> how, at this point, it would be possible to take these discussions into
> account in the WMF AP.

Unless WMF plans to dramatically expand in the next fiscal (which I
doubt), I think this discussion can and needs to happen on its own
timeline. I expect that if WMF suggests to depart a bit from what's
written into a one-year plan, with good reasons, the institutions of
the movement will have the flexibility to accommodate that.

I also understand WMF folks are very busy with the plan right now, and
I don't think there's special urgency to this conversation, which is
one with lots of long term implications. I do hope folks have a chance
to weigh in, but if that happens over the course of few weeks/months
in different venues, I personally think that's fine.

> This series of operations, while complicated, may yield a more resilient
> movement in the end, possibly with more combined funding, more
> accountability and transparency, and more credibility.

Yes, I hope so. :) But let's take it slowly and poke at this from
different angles to see if it makes sense.

Warmly,

Erik

___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread David Emrany
Hi Adele

Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]

Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.

WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
Facebook's ersatz versions [2]

Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.

David

[1] 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/

[2] 
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/

On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> Hi Teles,
>
> As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
>
> Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
>
> In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload of
> copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular challenge
> of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
>
> Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form (like
> huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware of
> this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to Community
> Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
>
> We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we would
> prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from zero
> rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this issue.
> As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
>
> With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
> resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
> examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
> discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you and
> the list here.
>
> On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
> readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber counts)
> and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s not
> enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
> is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
> that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.
>
> However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
> community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
> crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
> hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
> opportunity to learn how to deal with new readers and editors.
>
> Best regards,
> Adele
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which are
>> really
>> interesting to read -- read them in english --
>> https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf  of course I dont expect
>> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but
>> they
>> do know the principles of it and what they can do
>>
>> some points of interest
>>
>>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>>by the press or broadcast
>>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
>> photographic
>>process by  documentation centres  or teaching
>> organisations
>>. refers 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Ting Chen

Hello Erik, hello Gerard, hello all,

while Erik raised a very important topic and I will go into some of the 
aspects I agree with him later in this mail I want at first say that 
Gerard also mentioned some very important points that I strongly agree.


Splitting WMF has merits but also has disadvantages. Disadvantages could 
be, aside of what Gerard mentioned in his mail, duplicate or even 
tripplize organizational structures and overheads, more effort to 
coordinate, synchronize and more need for alignment. In most cases if 
commercial corperates split into many subsidiaries the reason for that 
is to create predetermined breaking points in anticipation of the 
possibility to sell part of the business areas in the future. This is 
not applicable for us.


That said, I agree with Erik that the current movement wide 
organizational structure is highly centralized. If we take the example 
of expenses as an indicator I scarcely see any organization (commercial 
or non-profit) who call themselves a world-wide operating organization 
with such a centralization grade. The developments after the Haifa board 
meeting need reevaluation and eventually correction.


While in the past whenever in a chapter a crisis emerged the WMF may 
talk about organizational inmaturity, I find it a show of maturity and I 
see awefull reaction from the chapters stretching out helping hands. Yes 
I think we should reconsider if our movement organizational structure 
really reflect one of our values: decentralization. But maybe not an 
"easy" split the WMF.


best wishes
Ting


Am 03/18/2016 um 12:43 PM schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

Hoi,
Organising our movement in the format of a federation will not necessarily
do what you describe. As you assume that money flows to the places where
money is spend, you will not have a federation.  A federation is based on
equal terms and when money is what keeps everone in line it is not a
federation of equals.

When you carve our movement up in parts, it becomes impossible to impose
much of what needs to be imposed. New functionality in software is badly
needed in places, a discussion on quality does not happen because it
clashes with vested interests. The negative impact of the community on
innovation is real and when one community gains even more power because of
the proposed fragmentation, I doubt if we will ever have this conversation
and many others that do not happen.

In a federation, it becomes easier to know who is local. I know the Dutch
chapter, they know me and there is not the same fuss for getting a project
under way. No committees, just a good common understanding what it is that
is proposed and why is sufficient. It is what makes a federation agile. It
is for the professionals in the chapter (or the people who volunteer to do
this) to be involved in the gruelling aspects of this kind of headache.
 translatewiki.net does not fit in any model and why should it?


When you federate, you will have to do something about fund-raising and
fund dissemination. They are two sides to a coin. The problem is very much
that we are an internet community and many of the activities have a global
scope. I mention Wikimedia Germany and Wikidata, Wikimedia (Scandinavia
they work together) and mapping.. the list goes on. When such projects can
have a place in a federated model than good but the problems are rife. How
for instance do people in India pick up on Maps for instance and outgrow
what happens in Scandinavia?? Arguably this is a non-issue when we
collaborate but the organisation, funding is often not agile enough to cope.

This idea of federation very much needs a lot of "tire kicking". Even when
nothing comes of it, it helps us understand what it is we do and are. We
are a movement, not a foundation. The layers of the movement are easily
forgotten and they operate best when people have good working relations. I
do think that the notion of "150" has its point but given the scope of what
we do (it is not convenient to note more than 150 Wikipedias, more than 150
countries..) We have to be clever about this. It is what makes Wikimania so
powerful, it brings us all together and work on our mutual relations. After
all, you never know what relations you need when.
Thanks,
  GerardM




On 18 March 2016 at 03:22, Erik Moeller  wrote:


Hi folks,

Now that the dust has settled a bit, I would like to expand on an idea
that’s been touched on a few times (most recently, in an editorial by
William Beutler [1]): the notion that WMF might be a more effective
organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
organizations and affiliates.

I was very much part of building the current WMF in terms of both size
and structure, but I also think recent events underscore the fragility
of the current model. WMF is still tiny compared with other tech
companies that operate popular websites, but it’s a vast organization
by Wikimedia movement standards. With nearly 300 staff [2] 

[Wikimedia-l] Facebook updates "community standards" for a "diverse global community"

2016-03-19 Thread Toby Dollmann
Facebook has updated its "community standards" for its 1.4 billion
users. Much of it is relevant for WM Commons.

"It's a challenge to maintain one set of standards that meets the
needs of a diverse global community," said Monika Bickert, Facebook's
head of global policy management, and Chris Sonderby, Facebook's
deputy general counsel, in a blog post.

"We have a set of Community Standards that are designed to help people
understand what is acceptable to share on Facebook," Facebook said.
"These standards are designed to create an environment where people
feel motivated and empowered to treat each other with empathy and
respect."

In addition to nudity and hate speech, Facebook gave extra emphasis to
what constitutes self-injury, dangerous organizations, bullying and
harassment, criminal activity, sexual violence and exploitation,
violence and graphic content.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/16/technology/facebook-nudity/

___
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 NYC proposal to broaden WMF nominations - submit today

2016-03-19 Thread Pharos
Hi fellow Wikimedians,

We held our chapter's public meeting and open vote on March 16, and we
found all the ten people running qualified to participate as candidates in
the current WMF election.

This is part of our chapter's policy to encourage a more diverse and more
transparent process for the WMF board elections, and particularly to
encourage non-traditional candidates whose inclusion we would find to
benefit the overall elections process.

We were glad to see three or four candidates join the process who would not
have otherwise applied, and are also happy to see that several of the newer
candidates have received endorsements from other chapters as well (even
before our public vote).

Thanks,
Pharos
Wikimedia NYC

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:19 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> Thanks Pharos for making this offer and for outlining what your chapter
> voting process will be! Both are good practices to bring to a process that
> has in the past been generally opaque.
>
> Best,
> Phoebe
> On Mar 8, 2016 8:14 AM, "Pharos"  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Pharos 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi fellow Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > Wikimedia NYC is interested in opening up and diversifying the
> Wikimedia
> > > Foundation board nominations process (beyond the typical
> > chapter-affiliated
> > > candidates), so interested parties are welcomed to submit their
> > > self-nominations today on Meta-Wiki, and we will consider all
> reasonable
> > > applications from around the world, and will endorse those
> > non-traditional
> > > candidates whose inclusion we would find to benefit the overall
> elections
> > > process.
> > >
> > > You just have to start the page for your nomination on Meta-Wiki today,
> > > details can be filled in over the coming week.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> > >
> > > Nominations must be in by UTC end of day March 8 on Meta-Wiki (which is
> > > the global deadline), and Wikimedia NYC will formally make the choice
> of
> > > candidates to endorse for participation in the elections at its March
> 16
> > > 'WikiWednesday' public meeting, to be determined by an open vote of
> > > attendees at that meeting.
> > >
> > > We also commit to having a vote at our public meeting in April or May
> to
> > > make our chapter's decision for the actual elections.
> > >
> > > Feel free to write to us beforehand if you have questions.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Pharos
> > > Wikimedia NYC
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> The board of trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation has 10 seats. The
> > >> office
> > >> holders for 2 of these 10 seats will be selected in the "2016
> > >> affiliate-selected board seats" process described at
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> For a candidate to be considered in this election, they must be
> > nominated
> > >> by 8 March and endorsed by a voting Wikimedia organizational affiliate
> > by
> > >> 23 March.
> > >>
> > >> If anyone has any nomination to make, we are now in the last day!
> > >> Nominations must be made by the end of 8 March! Make a nomination for
> > >> yourself or another person at
> > >> <
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> For those making a nomination, please follow up by soliciting for
> > >> endorsement of the nomination from one voting organization. That
> > >> endorsement must be posted by 23 March. Candidates in the election
> must
> > be
> > >> nominated by the end of March 8 and must have their endorsement by 23
> > >> March.
> > >>
> > >> Beyond nomination, please participate in the election by encouraging
> all
> > >> organizations which are eligible to vote to cast their vote later
> during
> > >> the voting period.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks - and forgive me if I misspoke in any part of this. I am
> anxious
> > >> about writing correctly and clearly. The official election
> documentation
> > >> is
> > >> on-wiki.
> > >>
> > >> yours,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Lane Rasberry
> > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > >> 206.801.0814
> > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread George Herbert



> On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:41 AM, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> 
> at the end it all boils down to
> money. spending all money available and wanting more money never has
> been a problem. if there is dissent it was always about who has the
> say what the money is spent on, and where it is spent. i am convinced
> if we get the responsibilities right, the dissent will stop, and the
> output will be better.
> 
> sizing organizations and distributing responsibilities on a global
> scale seems to be a very difficult task, close to the soviet empire's
> task to plan its next 5 years. one could argue to resolve it via
> setting a financial targets, just as multinational companies do. two
> simple long term key performance indicators might already do the trick
> for the wikimedia movement: first "maximum 50% of the money is spent
> on persons whose life depend financially on the movement", which is
> employees, or long term contracting persons, organizations,
> foundations, enterprises. and second, "50% of the money stays in the
> country where it is donated." the rest will auto-organize, and
> auto-change. finding intelligent spending for the rest of the 50%
> should not be a too difficult task, there is sufficient universities
> and students around the world who would be happy to compete for this
> money. the success, means and outcome will change over time, in areas
> and ways nobody can predict today. the 50% are a made up number, a
> little bit influenced by public spending of 40% - 50% in many
> industrialized countries nowadays. it seems people accept such a
> ratio.

I...  This line of thinking worries me.

In Programming / IT / information companies, there are a number of well known 
examples of organizations with legendary ineffectiveness measured on a per 
dollar or per employee basis.

Logic of "we will just control or manage the money flow" is focusing on the 
wrong end entirely.  We need organizations that are effective, and secondarily 
(for a host of reasons) which people enjoy working in.  Neither of those is a 
result of any accounting focused reform or management approach.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone


___
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Organising our movement in the format of a federation will not necessarily
do what you describe. As you assume that money flows to the places where
money is spend, you will not have a federation.  A federation is based on
equal terms and when money is what keeps everone in line it is not a
federation of equals.

When you carve our movement up in parts, it becomes impossible to impose
much of what needs to be imposed. New functionality in software is badly
needed in places, a discussion on quality does not happen because it
clashes with vested interests. The negative impact of the community on
innovation is real and when one community gains even more power because of
the proposed fragmentation, I doubt if we will ever have this conversation
and many others that do not happen.

In a federation, it becomes easier to know who is local. I know the Dutch
chapter, they know me and there is not the same fuss for getting a project
under way. No committees, just a good common understanding what it is that
is proposed and why is sufficient. It is what makes a federation agile. It
is for the professionals in the chapter (or the people who volunteer to do
this) to be involved in the gruelling aspects of this kind of headache.
 translatewiki.net does not fit in any model and why should it?


When you federate, you will have to do something about fund-raising and
fund dissemination. They are two sides to a coin. The problem is very much
that we are an internet community and many of the activities have a global
scope. I mention Wikimedia Germany and Wikidata, Wikimedia (Scandinavia
they work together) and mapping.. the list goes on. When such projects can
have a place in a federated model than good but the problems are rife. How
for instance do people in India pick up on Maps for instance and outgrow
what happens in Scandinavia?? Arguably this is a non-issue when we
collaborate but the organisation, funding is often not agile enough to cope.

This idea of federation very much needs a lot of "tire kicking". Even when
nothing comes of it, it helps us understand what it is we do and are. We
are a movement, not a foundation. The layers of the movement are easily
forgotten and they operate best when people have good working relations. I
do think that the notion of "150" has its point but given the scope of what
we do (it is not convenient to note more than 150 Wikipedias, more than 150
countries..) We have to be clever about this. It is what makes Wikimania so
powerful, it brings us all together and work on our mutual relations. After
all, you never know what relations you need when.
Thanks,
 GerardM




On 18 March 2016 at 03:22, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Now that the dust has settled a bit, I would like to expand on an idea
> that’s been touched on a few times (most recently, in an editorial by
> William Beutler [1]): the notion that WMF might be a more effective
> organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
> organizations and affiliates.
>
> I was very much part of building the current WMF in terms of both size
> and structure, but I also think recent events underscore the fragility
> of the current model. WMF is still tiny compared with other tech
> companies that operate popular websites, but it’s a vast organization
> by Wikimedia movement standards. With nearly 300 staff [2] (beyond
> even our ambitious 2015 strategic plan staffing numbers), it dwarfs
> any other movement org.
>
> I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
>
> 1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
> independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
> within that organization.
>
> 2) Focus. Wikimedia’s mission is very broad, and an organization with
> a clearly defined mandate is less likely to be pulled in many
> different directions -- at every level.
>
> 3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier
> to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants
> them to do.
>
> My experience is that growth tends to be self-reinforcing in budgetary
> processes if there are now clear ceilings established. I think that’s
> true in almost any organization. There’s always lots of work to do,
> and new teams will discover new gaps and areas into which they would
> like to expand. Hence, I would argue for the following:
>
> a) To establish 150 as the provisional ceiling for Wikimedia movement
> organizations. This is Dunbar’s number, and it has been used
> (sometimes intentionally, sometimes organically) as a limiting number
> for religious groups, military companies, corporate divisions, tax
> offices, and other human endeavors.  [3][4] This is very specifically
> because it makes organizational units more manageable and
> understandable for those who work there.
>
> b) To slowly, gradually identify parts of the WMF which would benefit
> from being spun off into independent organizations, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-19 Thread Jimmy Wales
I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
promising any sooner.

On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>> release an email?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>
>> There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
>> James and cc-ed to Pete.
>>
>> James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
>> [2]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
> 
> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> priority.  It has gone on too long.
> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> was redacted.
> 


___
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On 2016-03-18 07:56, Erik Moeller wrote:

2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W :
I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the 
best

way would be to facilitate this conversation.

Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for 
discussion?


Hi Pine,

Thanks for the comments! I wanted to start here to get a sense if
people are supportive of the idea(s) in general.


I am not sure about support, but this is a sensible idea to be discussed 
in a format different from the mailing list. Thanks Erik for bringing 
this up.


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] [Wiki-research-l] Research showcase: Evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

2016-03-19 Thread Aaron Halfaker
Reminder, this showcase is starting in 5 minutes.  See the stream here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xle0oOFCNnk

Join us on Freenode at #wikimedia-research
 to ask Andrei
questions.

-Aaron

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> This month, our research showcase
>  hosts
> Andrei Rizoiu (Australian National University) to talk about his work
>  on *how private traits of
> Wikipedia editors can be exposed from public data* (such as edit
> histories) using off-the-shelf machine learning techniques. (abstract below)
>
> If you're interested in learning what the combination of machine learning
> and public data mean for privacy and surveillance, come and join us this 
> *Wednesday
> March 16* at *1pm Pacific Time*.
>
> The event will be recorded and publicly streamed
> . As usual, we will be
> hosting the conversation with the speaker and Q on the
> #wikimedia-research channel on IRC.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you there,
>
> Dario
>
>
> Evolution of Privacy Loss in WikipediaThe cumulative effect of collective
> online participation has an important and adverse impact on individual
> privacy. As an online system evolves over time, new digital traces of
> individual behavior may uncover previously hidden statistical links between
> an individual’s past actions and her private traits. To quantify this
> effect, we analyze the evolution of individual privacy loss by studying
> the edit history of Wikipedia over 13 years, including more than 117,523
> different users performing 188,805,088 edits. We trace each Wikipedia’s
> contributor using apparently harmless features, such as the number of edits
> performed on predefined broad categories in a given time period (e.g.
> Mathematics, Culture or Nature). We show that even at this unspecific level
> of behavior description, it is possible to use off-the-shelf machine
> learning algorithms to uncover usually undisclosed personal traits, such as
> gender, religion or education. We provide empirical evidence that the
> prediction accuracy for almost all private traits consistently improves
> over time. Surprisingly, the prediction performance for users who stopped
> editing after a given time still improves. The activities performed by new
> users seem to have contributed more to this effect than additional
> activities from existing (but still active) users. Insights from this work
> should help users, system designers, and policy makers understand and make
> long-term design choices in online content creation systems.
>
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> 
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-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] User interaction on Wikipedia --call for submissions

2016-03-19 Thread Richard Symonds
Thanks Moushira :-)
On 16 Mar 2016 16:55, "Moushira Elamrawy"  wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> I see that we have an interesting input here.
>
> Let me add further context, not to give any excuses but to put things in
> their perspective. This has nothing do to with corporate or jargon Silicon
> Valley culture, as I simply don't live in the US, and I don't have any
> corporate background  :). I come from a design background, and while I am
> not a native English speaker, I didn't encounter any previous
> misunderstanding with using this word, in context, in the last decade, even
> with other non-native speakers.
>
> I now see the relevance of psychology in the use of the word "ideation"
> (where regardless of the article quality, we have the word used in both
> context
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Ideation_%28creative_process%29=500
> >still)
> . Given my non-medical background, and my previous use of the word, without
> failing to deliver what I needed to express at any point earlier, I,
> therefore, made a choice to include it in my email, which I wrote by myself
> without peer review.
>
> I see the point around the Foundation's seemingly repeated pattern of using
> words (or abbreviation) that aren't widely understood outside their
> context, or by a broader audience. While this is a valid concern, I just
> wanted to point out that our case here, is a matter of me failing to choose
> a term that isn't apparently jargon, because sometimes it is tricky to
> decide.
>
> Again, this is a good lesson on the importance of simplifying and
> globalizing my choice of words (oh, globalize could be jargon..no, not
> again ;).
>
> Point taken, thanks again everyone.
>
> Moushira
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > While I agree with people that it's an uncommon and exclusionary
> > phrase (and a confusing one!) it seems like Moushira fully
> > acknowledges this and is going to work harder on this sort of problem
> > in the future, for which I laud her.
> >
> > If we want to have a general conversation about language choice at the
> > WMF, broadly-construed, it seems like it would be best to kick off a
> > new thread to avoid the appearance of a pileon.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Derek V.Giroulle
> >  wrote:
> > > Hello everyone ,
> > >
> > > I agree with Fae and Craig,
> > > It's foreign jargon especially in this context , and on top of that
> > jargon
> > > form a professional background where the term has been misused (imho)
> > > It has in my jargon the connotation of obsessively recurring idea ,
> like
> > a
> > > depressed patient
> > > always coming back to ideas of suicide : the suicidal ideation
> > > It would be the only place where i would allow fosuch reductive jargon
> > > because it has precise meaning
> > > i wouls never associate it with  idea generation or brainstorming what
> is
> > > wrong with using those words
> > > as craig indicated : cringe worthy (business) jargon
> > > the mere fact that product design (business ing general) is stealing a
> > word
> > > form other jargon
> > > show a lack of creativity of innovation
> > >
> > > I would like to call on the communications dept to start  - and i can
> > just
> > > picture someone for that task - a campaign
> > > at WMF  to ban jargon  "simply says it better"
> > >
> > >
> > > derek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16-03-16 04:39, Craig Franklin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Moushira,
> > >>
> > >> The problem when you use jargon like "ideation" in this context is
> that
> > >> you're essentially excluding anyone who isn't familiar with the
> > particular
> > >> terminology used in the field.  Especially so when there are plenty of
> > >> plain-English alternatives that can be used in its place.  Note that
> > there
> > >> is a whole bunch of thought from experts that that word in particular
> > is a
> > >> particularly obnoxious piece of jargon:
> > >>
> > >> * http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/26/pf/corporate-jargon/
> > >> * https://hbr.org/2008/08/why-jargon-feeds-on-lazy-minds.html
> > >> *
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.lifed.com/10-cringeworthy-business-jargon-examples-that-should-be-banned
> > >>
> > >> It's hardly the worst example I've seen out of the WMF, but while
> we're
> > on
> > >> the topic it should be pointed out.  Just because it's used elsewhere,
> > it
> > >> doesn't mean that the WMF has to fall into the same trap.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Craig
> > >>
> > >> On 16 March 2016 at 10:07, Moushira Elamrawy  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello Fae,
> > >>>
> > >>> Ideation phase [0], is a term widely used in product and design
> > context.
> > >>> Now, I see your point around how volunteers who are not related to
> > these
> > >>> fields, might not be familiar with it. Possibly something like, idea
> > >>> generation, or brainstorming could have replaced it.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Adam Wight
Erik, thank you for framing this discussion, I think your "Resilience,
Focus, Accountability" formula hits on some of the most important ways in
which the Wikimedia Foundation has failed.  I share the concerns of Sydney
and Gerard however, and would like to ask some questions about how a real
Federation might emerge.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> Finally, as was discussed here a lot in recent weeks, WMF itself has
> no clear accountability to the movement.

I think this is the first thing.  For the same reason, we should not expect
or even allow the Wikimedia Foundation to take the lead in any federating
that takes place.

To briefly argue about the source of authority for making financial
decisions about the Wikimedia movement: a generous majority of donor money
comes from people like us on this list, who donate less than $100, and
roughly the same proportion of these donors (75%) imagine that they are
donating directly to Wikipedia.[1, 2]  The historical events which led to
the Foundation taking the money and deciding how it should be spent is
quite arbitrary, and the insular structure of its Board of Trustees is also
an accident waiting to be corrected.[3]

It seems clear that the Wikimedian contributors have both an ethical and a
legal claim over these funds, and over the supporting organizations, the
endowment, and so on.

Let's give Wikimedia resources back to the contributors, and follow their
lead on how to allocate.  Surprises are fun!

Demographic bias among the contributors, towards anglophone regions or
other power and population centers, is certainly a problem, but it would be
paternalistic for the WMF to assume that it can do a better job creating a
space for global social justice than the Wikimedians themselves might do.
In fact, given the WMF's own position in North America, and the Silicon
Valley bias of its Board, that would a case of the fox guarding the
henhouse.


On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>== The Wiki Education Foundation precedent ==

This is actually a deeply disturbing precedent that has affected me
personally.  Others on this thread have mentioned it already, but the WIki
Education Foundation is *specifically* not chartered to serve a global
audience, they only deal with the United States and Canada.[4]  Having just
finished a month of working as a developer with the Community Engagement
team--one of the few months of developer time ever conceded to this
department--I feel confident repeating the common knowledge that the
remnants of the Education Program which remain at the Wikimedia Foundation
are shamefully underfunded, and now in freefall with the loss of Anna Koval
and Floor Koudijs.  I have to think this is all a direct consequence of
outsourcing the North American, English wing of the program, and that the
resources have followed.  As wonderful and caring as the Wiki Education
staff are as individuals and as an organization, and even with Sage Ross
making the most generous contributions of his personal time to help with
internationalization, I ask how the Wiki Education Foundation will ever
fill the gap left by the WMF's Education Program, if its charter does not
allow it to do so?

Likewise, if we carve off MediaWiki software development into its own
clubhouse, they will inevitably look for funding from the biggest funded
users of the software, which are governments and corporations.  Bite the
hands that feed you?  They'll have no choice but to modify their mission to
accommodate the wishes of their donors.

Again, I would oppose the current WMF leadership making any of these
difficult decisions.  My faith would be much more in the capacity for a
broad alliance of Wikimedia project contributors to constructively engage
with your recommendations.  Of course WMF staff and Board members past and
present would probably be invited to this table, but as equals and
individuals, not as the holders of the purse strings.

-Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
This letter represents my personal views and not necessarily those of my
employer, the Wikimedia Foundation.

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/FY1415AmountDistributionPieChart.png/1100px-FY1415AmountDistributionPieChart.png
[2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Wikimedia_2014_English_Fundraiser_Survey.pdf
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy
[4] https://wikiedu.org/about-us/

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:41 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
> > the notion that WMF might be a more effective
> > organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
> > organizations and affiliates.
> 
> > I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
> >
> > 1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread rupert THURNER
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> the notion that WMF might be a more effective
> organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
> organizations and affiliates.

> I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
>
> 1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
> independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
> within that organization.
>
> 2) Focus. Wikimedia’s mission is very broad, and an organization with
> a clearly defined mandate is less likely to be pulled in many
> different directions -- at every level.
>
> 3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier
> to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants
> them to do.
>
> My experience is that growth tends to be self-reinforcing in budgetary
> processes if there are now clear ceilings established. I think that’s
> true in almost any organization. There’s always lots of work to do,
> and new teams will discover new gaps and areas into which they would
> like to expand. Hence, I would argue for the following:
>
> a) To establish 150 as the provisional ceiling for Wikimedia movement
> organizations. This is Dunbar’s number, and it has been used
> (sometimes intentionally, sometimes organically) as a limiting number
> for religious groups, military companies, corporate divisions, tax
> offices, and other human endeavors.  [3][4] This is very specifically
> because it makes organizational units more manageable and
> understandable for those who work there.
>
> b) To slowly, gradually identify parts of the WMF which would benefit
> from being spun off into independent organizations, and to launch such
> spin-offs, narrowing WMF's focus in the process.
>
> c) To aim to more clearly separate funding and evaluation
> responsibilities from programmatic work within the movement -- whether
> that work is keeping websites running, building software, or doing
> GLAM work.

> == Where to go from here? ==
>
> There are lots of open questions in all of this. Should all site-wide
> fundraising remain inside WMF, for example, with funds being
> transferred to a movement entity? What’s the dividing line between
> "development for third parties" (MWF) and "development for Wikimedia"
> (WMF)? How would staff transition to new organizations? Where should
> those organizations be based? Should they be distributed, have
> offices?
>
> An important thing to remember here (a lesson I’ve had to learn
> painfully) is that big changes are best made in small steps, with room
> for trial and error.
>
> Implementing this strategy is, I think, a matter of first committing
> to it as an idea, and then creating coherent proposals for each step,
> publicly with broad input. First, if there is support for the general
> idea, I would recommend kicking it around: Are these the right kinds
> of spin-offs? What are the risks and how should existing affiliates be
> involved in the process? And so on.

that all sounds quite reasonable. also what erik writes about
organisations is to be expected. at the end it all boils down to
money. spending all money available and wanting more money never has
been a problem. if there is dissent it was always about who has the
say what the money is spent on, and where it is spent. i am convinced
if we get the responsibilities right, the dissent will stop, and the
output will be better.

sizing organizations and distributing responsibilities on a global
scale seems to be a very difficult task, close to the soviet empire's
task to plan its next 5 years. one could argue to resolve it via
setting a financial targets, just as multinational companies do. two
simple long term key performance indicators might already do the trick
for the wikimedia movement: first "maximum 50% of the money is spent
on persons whose life depend financially on the movement", which is
employees, or long term contracting persons, organizations,
foundations, enterprises. and second, "50% of the money stays in the
country where it is donated." the rest will auto-organize, and
auto-change. finding intelligent spending for the rest of the 50%
should not be a too difficult task, there is sufficient universities
and students around the world who would be happy to compete for this
money. the success, means and outcome will change over time, in areas
and ways nobody can predict today. the 50% are a made up number, a
little bit influenced by public spending of 40% - 50% in many
industrialized countries nowadays. it seems people accept such a
ratio.

whatever the target is, getting acceptance is not simple. currently
the WMF at the same time controls the domain and with it money inflow.
at the same time WMF spends 90% of the total money, preferably to its
own employees. "growth" is such a natural target, no matter in what
area that WMF tries to even increase this percentage. from a WMF
perspective it is not bad at all. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Edward Galvez
*WikiEd Foundation Dashboard

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Edward Galvez 
wrote:

>
> Hi Itzik - a question for you
>
> The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
>> WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can
>> use
>> it around the world, not only in the US. It is a powerful tool that the
>> WMF
>> is not even close or plans to offer to the education teams around the
>> world.
>> While the WMF is also not planning to develop one - why not to support the
>> EDUFund or another chapter in order to make it international?
>>
>
> What is EDUFund Dashboard? Are you referring to the WikiFoundation
> Dashboard ?
>
> Thanks,
> Edward
>
>


-- 
Edward Galvez
Survey Specialist
Learning & Evaluation
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Erik Moeller
2016-03-18 9:01 GMT-07:00 Sydney Poore :

Hi Sydney!

> Right now the central hub of the global movement is WMF. Despite other
> recent problems. The WMF is doing a great job of regularly communicating
> about the world wide movement.
>
> There needs to be a successful transfer of the global mission to another
> body/bodies or there is the risk that local growth will be even more uneven
> than today.

Yes, I agree with that, and I think it's generally what characterizes
successful federate models. A "Wikimedia Movement Association" with
global membership could address this. Let's say as a hypothetical that
grantmaking and evaluation responsibilities ultimately become part of
such a WMA's scope. That would naturally give it a lot of
responsibility for sharing practices, bringing attention to things
that work, and helping to organize postmortems or governance reviews
where appropriate.

Not being itself responsible for a large body of programs, and being
accountable to its members, it could be in a better position to foster
a global sense of belonging and accountability. I suspect a lot of us
would become dues-paying members of such an organization, and proudly
so.

To the extent that it would do programmatic work, like organizing
conferences or developing tools for evaluation, it would likely do so
by contracting that work out to affiliates within the movement, or
externally if necessary. That would enable it to remain lean,
staffing-wise. And incidentally, it could enable organizations like
WMDE to bid for contracts alongside WMF, yielding the benefits of
light competition and greater geographic diversity.

What would a WMA _not_ do? It would not host servers, or deal with
trust and safety issues on the websites, or respond to DMCA notices,
or develop MediaWiki improvements.  It _might_ have a stewardship role
for movement resources, like the movement blog and potentially even
the brand assets, as an ultimate safety valve.

In short, a movement association would act as a direct proxy for the
movement, maintaining a network of clearly scoped short term and long
term relationships to advance the Wikimedia mission. It would not
replace the WMF, but it would give it a more clearly defined scope of
responsibilities and a more equal footing within the movement.

Erik

___
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Edward Galvez
Hi Itzik - a question for you

The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
> WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can use
> it around the world, not only in the US. It is a powerful tool that the WMF
> is not even close or plans to offer to the education teams around the
> world.
> While the WMF is also not planning to develop one - why not to support the
> EDUFund or another chapter in order to make it international?
>

What is EDUFund Dashboard? Are you referring to the WikiFoundation Dashboard
?

Thanks,
Edward
___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread Vituzzu



Il 19/03/2016 13:57, Gnangarra ha scritto:

​outside the US things like copyright isnt  respected, enforced or even
part of a person education

Not really.

  We also have
the URAA which even Commons has struggled with swings in interpretation
over the last few years

Definitely a fail of common law ;)
Seriously I think Wikimedia should somehow escape from being *so* 
affected by USA law.



Vito

___
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] [Wiki-research-l] Research showcase: Evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

2016-03-19 Thread SarahSV
Dario and Aaron, thanks for letting us know about this. Is the research
available in writing for people who don't want to sit through the video?

Sarah

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Reminder, this showcase is starting in 5 minutes.  See the stream here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xle0oOFCNnk
>
> Join us on Freenode at #wikimedia-research
>  to ask Andrei
> questions.
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > This month, our research showcase
> > 
> hosts
> > Andrei Rizoiu (Australian National University) to talk about his work
> >  on *how private traits of
> > Wikipedia editors can be exposed from public data* (such as edit
> > histories) using off-the-shelf machine learning techniques. (abstract
> below)
> >
> > If you're interested in learning what the combination of machine learning
> > and public data mean for privacy and surveillance, come and join us this
> *Wednesday
> > March 16* at *1pm Pacific Time*.
> >
> > The event will be recorded and publicly streamed
> > . As usual, we will be
> > hosting the conversation with the speaker and Q on the
> > #wikimedia-research channel on IRC.
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing you there,
> >
> > Dario
> >
> >
> > Evolution of Privacy Loss in WikipediaThe cumulative effect of collective
> > online participation has an important and adverse impact on individual
> > privacy. As an online system evolves over time, new digital traces of
> > individual behavior may uncover previously hidden statistical links
> between
> > an individual’s past actions and her private traits. To quantify this
> > effect, we analyze the evolution of individual privacy loss by studying
> > the edit history of Wikipedia over 13 years, including more than 117,523
> > different users performing 188,805,088 edits. We trace each Wikipedia’s
> > contributor using apparently harmless features, such as the number of
> edits
> > performed on predefined broad categories in a given time period (e.g.
> > Mathematics, Culture or Nature). We show that even at this unspecific
> level
> > of behavior description, it is possible to use off-the-shelf machine
> > learning algorithms to uncover usually undisclosed personal traits, such
> as
> > gender, religion or education. We provide empirical evidence that the
> > prediction accuracy for almost all private traits consistently improves
> > over time. Surprisingly, the prediction performance for users who stopped
> > editing after a given time still improves. The activities performed by
> new
> > users seem to have contributed more to this effect than additional
> > activities from existing (but still active) users. Insights from this
> work
> > should help users, system designers, and policy makers understand and
> make
> > long-term design choices in online content creation systems.
> >
> >
> > *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Erik Moeller
Hi folks,

Now that the dust has settled a bit, I would like to expand on an idea
that’s been touched on a few times (most recently, in an editorial by
William Beutler [1]): the notion that WMF might be a more effective
organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
organizations and affiliates.

I was very much part of building the current WMF in terms of both size
and structure, but I also think recent events underscore the fragility
of the current model. WMF is still tiny compared with other tech
companies that operate popular websites, but it’s a vast organization
by Wikimedia movement standards. With nearly 300 staff [2] (beyond
even our ambitious 2015 strategic plan staffing numbers), it dwarfs
any other movement org.

I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:

1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
within that organization.

2) Focus. Wikimedia’s mission is very broad, and an organization with
a clearly defined mandate is less likely to be pulled in many
different directions -- at every level.

3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier
to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants
them to do.

My experience is that growth tends to be self-reinforcing in budgetary
processes if there are now clear ceilings established. I think that’s
true in almost any organization. There’s always lots of work to do,
and new teams will discover new gaps and areas into which they would
like to expand. Hence, I would argue for the following:

a) To establish 150 as the provisional ceiling for Wikimedia movement
organizations. This is Dunbar’s number, and it has been used
(sometimes intentionally, sometimes organically) as a limiting number
for religious groups, military companies, corporate divisions, tax
offices, and other human endeavors.  [3][4] This is very specifically
because it makes organizational units more manageable and
understandable for those who work there.

b) To slowly, gradually identify parts of the WMF which would benefit
from being spun off into independent organizations, and to launch such
spin-offs, narrowing WMF's focus in the process.

c) To aim to more clearly separate funding and evaluation
responsibilities from programmatic work within the movement -- whether
that work is keeping websites running, building software, or doing
GLAM work.

Note that I'm not proposing a quick splintering, but rather a slow and
gradual process with lots of opportunity to course-correct.

More on these points below.

== Potential test case: MediaWiki Foundation ==

A "MediaWiki Foundation" [5] has been proposed a few times and I
suspect continues to have some currency within WMF. This org would not
be focused on all WMF-related development work, but specifically on
MediaWiki as software that has value to third parties. Its mission
could include hosting services as earned income (and potentially as an
extension of the Wikimedia movement’s mission).

MediaWiki is used today by numerous nonprofit and educational projects
that are aligned even with a narrow view on Wikimedia’s mission.
Examples include Appropedia, OpenWetWare, WikiEducator, W3C’s
WebPlatform, Hesperian Health Guides, and too many notable open source
projects to list.

Among commercial users, it has lost much ground to other software like
Confluence, but it remains, in my view, the most viable platform for
large, open, collaborative communities. Yet it’s a poorly supported
option: many of the above wikis are outdated, and maintaining a
MediaWiki install is generally more work than it needs to be.

Building a healthy third party ecosystem will have obvious benefits
for the world, and for existing Wikimedia work as well. It may also
create a proving ground for experimental technology.

Which work that WMF is currently doing would be part of an MWF’s
mandate? I don’t know; I could imagine that it could include aspects
like Vagrant, or even shared responsibility for MediaWiki core and
MW’s architecture.

== The Wiki Education Foundation precedent ==

It’s worth noting that this spin-off model has been tried once before.
The Wiki Education Foundation is an example of an organization that
was created by volunteers doing work in this programmatic space in
partnership with staff of the Education Program at WMF, who left to
join the new org. It is now financially independent, building its own
relationships with funders that WMF has never worked with, and
achieving impact at unprecedented scale.

LiAnna Davis, who is today the Director of Program Support at Wiki Ed,
wrote a detailed response to William’s blog post, which I think is
worth quoting in full [1]:

begin quote
I worked for the WMF for nearly four years and have worked for the
spun-off Wiki Education Foundation for the last two, and I strongly
support the idea of spinning off more parts of WMF into 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread Gnangarra
On 19 March 2016 at 19:30, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >  of course I dont expect
> > people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but
> they
> > do know the principles of it and what they can do
> Are you sure?  In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of
> trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do.
> :)
>

​outside the US things like copyright isnt  respected, enforced or even
part of a person education especially in third world countries​, there is
no specific mention of digital work provisions in the Angola law


>
> But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.
>
> >- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day
> published
> >by the press or broadcast
> This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section 8).
>

​international conventions and agreements dont reach the end users
knowledge even in first world countries I sure very few people in the US
would know the changes being introduced in the TPP
​, I'd guess that alot of the people on this list are living in countries
that didnt even exist when the Berne Convention was signed. We also have
the URAA which even Commons has struggled with swings in interpretation
over the last few years

>
> >- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
> >reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
> photographic
> >process by  documentation centres  or teaching
> organisations
> >. refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
> >Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
> >reproduce
> I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this: those
> terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of
> the law, anyway).  In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright
> laws to make allowances for limited educational use.
>
​
This isnt limited reproduction of parts its the whole of the item can be
reproduced​,



>
> >- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
> >after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis
> are
> >having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they
> encourage
> >uploading of media
> This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne Convention's "special
> provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory,
> but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those
> provisions).  It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to
> be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to
> get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still
> have to pay the copyright holder).
>
> I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional
> phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".
>

​the problem coincided with Wikipedia Zero introduction, currently
volunteers spend thousands of hours every year dealing with copyright
violations from 1st world countries ​, the issue how do we stop the
inundation when its related to WP Zero activation, one is looking at the
copyright in each region and taking steps to avoid the creation of work for
the current volunteers, we know any two lawyers can read the same law and
come to differing interpretations

What could solve an immediate burden on current volunteers when introducing
WP Zero one possibility  is a read only access period, another is media
upload restrictions, but also incorporating some copyright education to end
users as well as the identifying which of our volunteer communities are
likely to impacted and provide clarity or least a WMF interpretation on
FOP, reuse, fair use , moral rights etc to those communities so they can be
prepared to address the impact. Maube ot be possible toput something like
pending revisions on uploads from the ip range of the country so at least
its not generally available in the initial period.  This has been an on
going issue for Commons and pt.wp for 12 months, its an issue that should
be addressed prior to startup not left to community to stumble around to
resolve leaving good faith editors impacted unfairly because there was no
preparation or support in managing the issue in the first instance. (yes
acknowledging that experience & hindsight are good teachers)

Gn.


> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
May I ask on what basis this should be done. Is it not equally relevant to
ask yourself how isolated you are in your position? Is this what we need,
will it do us any good or is it just that you feel that this is what "we"
need ?

It is fine for you to spout what you do. However, I am very much disgusted
with this constant sniping. It is not about what we do and it makes things
worse. I can totally echo you when I say that it has gone long enough.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 16 March 2016 at 13:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> > >> release an email?
> > >
> > > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> > > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
> > >
> > > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> > > James and cc-ed to Pete.
> > >
> > > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
> > >
> > > Sarah
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
> >
> > Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> > priority.  It has gone on too long.
> > If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> > other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> > was redacted.
>
>
>
>
> As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
> The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
> here.[2]
>
> There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
> drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
> submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
> in this movement for long enough.
>
> Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
> or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
> justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
> into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
> sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
> We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in
> early January,[3]
>
> Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
> reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
> published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
> best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
>
> The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used
> above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good
> faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good
> Wikimedian" should assume the best.
>
> Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this
> information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full
> transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be
> published were the board and/or ED.
>
> To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative.
> Can we please put an end to it?
>
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
>
> Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving
> queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html
> [2]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=710334640#What_James_said_publicly
> [3]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=698861097
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_officer
> ___
> 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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
Yes Edward, I referred to the WikiEd foundation dashboard. I may gave them
another nickname by mistake;)



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Edward Galvez 
wrote:

> Hi Itzik - a question for you
>
> The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
> > WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can
> use
> > it around the world, not only in the US. It is a powerful tool that the
> WMF
> > is not even close or plans to offer to the education teams around the
> > world.
> > While the WMF is also not planning to develop one - why not to support
> the
> > EDUFund or another chapter in order to make it international?
> >
>
> What is EDUFund Dashboard? Are you referring to the WikiFoundation
> Dashboard
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> Edward
> ___
> 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] [Wiki-research-l] Research showcase: Evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

2016-03-19 Thread Dario Taraborelli
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

> Dario and Aaron, thanks for letting us know about this. Is the research
> available in writing for people who don't want to sit through the video?
>
> Sarah
>

Sarah – yes, see http://cm.cecs.anu.edu.au/post/wikiprivacy/

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
>
> > Reminder, this showcase is starting in 5 minutes.  See the stream here:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xle0oOFCNnk
> >
> > Join us on Freenode at #wikimedia-research
> >  to ask Andrei
> > questions.
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
> > dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This month, our research showcase
> > >  >
> > hosts
> > > Andrei Rizoiu (Australian National University) to talk about his work
> > >  on *how private traits
> of
> > > Wikipedia editors can be exposed from public data* (such as edit
> > > histories) using off-the-shelf machine learning techniques. (abstract
> > below)
> > >
> > > If you're interested in learning what the combination of machine
> learning
> > > and public data mean for privacy and surveillance, come and join us
> this
> > *Wednesday
> > > March 16* at *1pm Pacific Time*.
> > >
> > > The event will be recorded and publicly streamed
> > > . As usual, we will be
> > > hosting the conversation with the speaker and Q on the
> > > #wikimedia-research channel on IRC.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to seeing you there,
> > >
> > > Dario
> > >
> > >
> > > Evolution of Privacy Loss in WikipediaThe cumulative effect of
> collective
> > > online participation has an important and adverse impact on individual
> > > privacy. As an online system evolves over time, new digital traces of
> > > individual behavior may uncover previously hidden statistical links
> > between
> > > an individual’s past actions and her private traits. To quantify this
> > > effect, we analyze the evolution of individual privacy loss by studying
> > > the edit history of Wikipedia over 13 years, including more than
> 117,523
> > > different users performing 188,805,088 edits. We trace each Wikipedia’s
> > > contributor using apparently harmless features, such as the number of
> > edits
> > > performed on predefined broad categories in a given time period (e.g.
> > > Mathematics, Culture or Nature). We show that even at this unspecific
> > level
> > > of behavior description, it is possible to use off-the-shelf machine
> > > learning algorithms to uncover usually undisclosed personal traits,
> such
> > as
> > > gender, religion or education. We provide empirical evidence that the
> > > prediction accuracy for almost all private traits consistently improves
> > > over time. Surprisingly, the prediction performance for users who
> stopped
> > > editing after a given time still improves. The activities performed by
> > new
> > > users seem to have contributed more to this effect than additional
> > > activities from existing (but still active) users. Insights from this
> > work
> > > should help users, system designers, and policy makers understand and
> > make
> > > long-term design choices in online content creation systems.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> > > 
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-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,
> 




-- 


*Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter

___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread Benjamin Lees
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>  of course I dont expect
> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they
> do know the principles of it and what they can do
Are you sure?  In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of
trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do.
:)

But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.

>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>by the press or broadcast
This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section 8).

>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to photographic
>process by  documentation centres  or teaching organisations
>. refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
>Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
>reproduce
I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this: those
terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of
the law, anyway).  In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright
laws to make allowances for limited educational use.

>- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
>after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are
>having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage
>uploading of media
This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne Convention's "special
provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory,
but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those
provisions).  It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to
be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to
get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still
have to pay the copyright holder).

I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional
phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".

___
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Manuel Schneider
Hi Erik,

thanks for your post, I was thinking of bringing this up as I was part
of that very discussion in August / September 2011 when the Wikimedia
overall governance model was discussed.

The idea that cristalized back then and which I still find very
appealing was to split today's WMF into these bodies - I am making some
adjustments here, as bodies like FDC didn't exist back then:

* Wikimedia Tech:
runs the servers, does the development - gets funded from the global
funds pool (today that would be FDC)

* Wikimedia Fundraising:
does the fundraising and distributes the funds, has the FDC staff /
grant making team

* Wikimedia Foundation:
more like a US chapter, does the content and lobby work, holds the
trademarks

You could even argue to move out the trademarks etc. to another body
which does nothing more than keeping those secure and maybe being home
of the endowment.

Regards,


Manuel
-- 
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
www.wikimedia.ch

___
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] User interaction on Wikipedia --call for submissions

2016-03-19 Thread Moushira Elamrawy
Hello again,

I see that we have an interesting input here.

Let me add further context, not to give any excuses but to put things in
their perspective. This has nothing do to with corporate or jargon Silicon
Valley culture, as I simply don't live in the US, and I don't have any
corporate background  :). I come from a design background, and while I am
not a native English speaker, I didn't encounter any previous
misunderstanding with using this word, in context, in the last decade, even
with other non-native speakers.

I now see the relevance of psychology in the use of the word "ideation"
(where regardless of the article quality, we have the word used in both
context
still)
. Given my non-medical background, and my previous use of the word, without
failing to deliver what I needed to express at any point earlier, I,
therefore, made a choice to include it in my email, which I wrote by myself
without peer review.

I see the point around the Foundation's seemingly repeated pattern of using
words (or abbreviation) that aren't widely understood outside their
context, or by a broader audience. While this is a valid concern, I just
wanted to point out that our case here, is a matter of me failing to choose
a term that isn't apparently jargon, because sometimes it is tricky to
decide.

Again, this is a good lesson on the importance of simplifying and
globalizing my choice of words (oh, globalize could be jargon..no, not
again ;).

Point taken, thanks again everyone.

Moushira


On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> While I agree with people that it's an uncommon and exclusionary
> phrase (and a confusing one!) it seems like Moushira fully
> acknowledges this and is going to work harder on this sort of problem
> in the future, for which I laud her.
>
> If we want to have a general conversation about language choice at the
> WMF, broadly-construed, it seems like it would be best to kick off a
> new thread to avoid the appearance of a pileon.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Derek V.Giroulle
>  wrote:
> > Hello everyone ,
> >
> > I agree with Fae and Craig,
> > It's foreign jargon especially in this context , and on top of that
> jargon
> > form a professional background where the term has been misused (imho)
> > It has in my jargon the connotation of obsessively recurring idea , like
> a
> > depressed patient
> > always coming back to ideas of suicide : the suicidal ideation
> > It would be the only place where i would allow fosuch reductive jargon
> > because it has precise meaning
> > i wouls never associate it with  idea generation or brainstorming what is
> > wrong with using those words
> > as craig indicated : cringe worthy (business) jargon
> > the mere fact that product design (business ing general) is stealing a
> word
> > form other jargon
> > show a lack of creativity of innovation
> >
> > I would like to call on the communications dept to start  - and i can
> just
> > picture someone for that task - a campaign
> > at WMF  to ban jargon  "simply says it better"
> >
> >
> > derek
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16-03-16 04:39, Craig Franklin wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Moushira,
> >>
> >> The problem when you use jargon like "ideation" in this context is that
> >> you're essentially excluding anyone who isn't familiar with the
> particular
> >> terminology used in the field.  Especially so when there are plenty of
> >> plain-English alternatives that can be used in its place.  Note that
> there
> >> is a whole bunch of thought from experts that that word in particular
> is a
> >> particularly obnoxious piece of jargon:
> >>
> >> * http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/26/pf/corporate-jargon/
> >> * https://hbr.org/2008/08/why-jargon-feeds-on-lazy-minds.html
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> http://www.lifed.com/10-cringeworthy-business-jargon-examples-that-should-be-banned
> >>
> >> It's hardly the worst example I've seen out of the WMF, but while we're
> on
> >> the topic it should be pointed out.  Just because it's used elsewhere,
> it
> >> doesn't mean that the WMF has to fall into the same trap.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig
> >>
> >> On 16 March 2016 at 10:07, Moushira Elamrawy 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Fae,
> >>>
> >>> Ideation phase [0], is a term widely used in product and design
> context.
> >>> Now, I see your point around how volunteers who are not related to
> these
> >>> fields, might not be familiar with it. Possibly something like, idea
> >>> generation, or brainstorming could have replaced it.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure though if the factors that you have listed are relevant;
> I
> >>> think it is a matter of using a word in a certain context where it
> >>> actually
> >>> fits, without realizing how a broader audience would perceive it.
> >>>
> >>> In any case, thanks for the note :-)
> >>>
> >>> [0] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
Hi Erik,

Those are great ideas, and I'm think I can support most of them.

MediaWiki is indeed something we need to invest on much more. Or even
re-built it from scratch. It's the base to all our work and the future or
our projects. The idea of having an organization that this is 100% of his
mission makes sense. Also the idea of hosting MW for others - see WordPress
for exmaple. Even the WMF, a big organization with hundreds of developers
and tech guys pays to WP in order to host is own blog.

The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can use
it around the world, not only in the US. It is a powerful tool that the WMF
is not even close or plans to offer to the education teams around the world.
While the WMF is also not planning to develop one - why not to support the
EDUFund or another chapter in order to make it international?
But why we need to go far with the ideas - WikiData is probably the
greatest example. But WMDE is not the only one organization that can do
things like that.

So yes, we most re-think how we de-centralize some of the
foundation\movement work.


Itzik



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Now that the dust has settled a bit, I would like to expand on an idea
> that’s been touched on a few times (most recently, in an editorial by
> William Beutler [1]): the notion that WMF might be a more effective
> organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
> organizations and affiliates.
>
> I was very much part of building the current WMF in terms of both size
> and structure, but I also think recent events underscore the fragility
> of the current model. WMF is still tiny compared with other tech
> companies that operate popular websites, but it’s a vast organization
> by Wikimedia movement standards. With nearly 300 staff [2] (beyond
> even our ambitious 2015 strategic plan staffing numbers), it dwarfs
> any other movement org.
>
> I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
>
> 1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
> independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
> within that organization.
>
> 2) Focus. Wikimedia’s mission is very broad, and an organization with
> a clearly defined mandate is less likely to be pulled in many
> different directions -- at every level.
>
> 3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier
> to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants
> them to do.
>
> My experience is that growth tends to be self-reinforcing in budgetary
> processes if there are now clear ceilings established. I think that’s
> true in almost any organization. There’s always lots of work to do,
> and new teams will discover new gaps and areas into which they would
> like to expand. Hence, I would argue for the following:
>
> a) To establish 150 as the provisional ceiling for Wikimedia movement
> organizations. This is Dunbar’s number, and it has been used
> (sometimes intentionally, sometimes organically) as a limiting number
> for religious groups, military companies, corporate divisions, tax
> offices, and other human endeavors.  [3][4] This is very specifically
> because it makes organizational units more manageable and
> understandable for those who work there.
>
> b) To slowly, gradually identify parts of the WMF which would benefit
> from being spun off into independent organizations, and to launch such
> spin-offs, narrowing WMF's focus in the process.
>
> c) To aim to more clearly separate funding and evaluation
> responsibilities from programmatic work within the movement -- whether
> that work is keeping websites running, building software, or doing
> GLAM work.
>
> Note that I'm not proposing a quick splintering, but rather a slow and
> gradual process with lots of opportunity to course-correct.
>
> More on these points below.
>
> == Potential test case: MediaWiki Foundation ==
>
> A "MediaWiki Foundation" [5] has been proposed a few times and I
> suspect continues to have some currency within WMF. This org would not
> be focused on all WMF-related development work, but specifically on
> MediaWiki as software that has value to third parties. Its mission
> could include hosting services as earned income (and potentially as an
> extension of the Wikimedia movement’s mission).
>
> MediaWiki is used today by numerous nonprofit and educational projects
> that are aligned even with a narrow view on Wikimedia’s mission.
> Examples include Appropedia, OpenWetWare, WikiEducator, W3C’s
> WebPlatform, Hesperian Health Guides, and too many notable open source
> projects to list.
>
> 

[Wikimedia-l] New Free Research Accounts via the Wikipedia Library

2016-03-19 Thread Jake Orlowitz
Hi!
The Wikipedia Library has many new, free research donations available:

NEW
* Cambridge University Press (Major academic book and journals publisher)
  

* Alexander Street (Educational videos and documentaries including PBS &
BBC)
  

* Baylor University Press (Ebooks primiarly in religious studies and the
humanities)
  

* Future Science Group (Medical, biotech, and scientific research)
  

* Annual Reviews (Review articles in biomedical sciences)
  

* Miramar Ship Index (Comprehensive index to ships and their histories
since early 19th century)
  

NON-ENGLISH
* Noormags (Farsi-language aggregator of academic and professional journals
and magazines)
  

* Kotobna (Arabic-language ebooks)
  

EXPANDED
* Gale (Huge aggregator of newspapers, magazines and academic journals)
  

* Elsevier (Major academic company that publishes medical and scientific
literature)
  

50 other partnerships with accounts available are listed on:
 .

Do better research and help expand the use of high-quality references
across Wikipedia projects. Sign up today!

-The Wikipedia Library Team
 
___
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] Scholarship Decline

2016-03-19 Thread Vitor Mazuco
Hi everybody!

my apply was decline.

This is my second time that is decline, and my friend of Brazil goes
every year, same users in every year and I never.

If do you compare my contribution as long with their, I have much more
and my apply is every year decline by WMF.

Please, who can help with this?

Thanks in advanced,

___
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Edward Galvez
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> Yes Edward, I referred to the WikiEd foundation dashboard. I may gave them
> another nickname by mistake;)
>

Well then - It's a good time to share that our team (Program Capacity &
Learning), with the support of developers in other departments, has just
built the *alpha* version of the Program and Events Dashboard[1]. "Alpha",
from my understanding, means it is still in development. I can let Amanda
share more about the project and where it is at. (You can find the project
in Phabricator as well)

But my point here is that we are working to recognize community needs and
adapting. I do have to admit that if it were not for the WikiEd
foundation's work, I wonder if the Program and Events Dashboard would have
been created at all. However, the added benefit that the WMF brings to the
Program and Events Dashboard is that its for ALL programs, globally - not
just the Education Program, and not just U.S. and Canada. I would have to
wonder if spun off organizations would be able to ensure the work they
create serve the broad global audiences (*which is already a challenge for
our 300 staff!*)

It is difficult to manage both the technology and governance sides of and
organization like the WMF, but part of me really hopes that this is what
can help us succeed and excel. It's a symbiotic relationship. Technology
works with and for people; they are difficult to separate; one doesn't work
well without the other, especially if trying to hold the technology that is
created to the values and purpose the movement and mission.


 [1] *Programs and Events Dashboard alpha
 built and tested!  Alpha works on
any wiki project and language. Now easier to use for edit-a-thons,
workshops, and education programs.  UX/UI and features still to be added to
core. *

*https://wikiedu-dashboard-staging.wmflabs.org
*


>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Edward Galvez 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Itzik - a question for you
> >
> > The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
> > > WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can
> > use
> > > it around the world, not only in the US. It is a powerful tool that the
> > WMF
> > > is not even close or plans to offer to the education teams around the
> > > world.
> > > While the WMF is also not planning to develop one - why not to support
> > the
> > > EDUFund or another chapter in order to make it international?
> > >
> >
> > What is EDUFund Dashboard? Are you referring to the WikiFoundation
> > Dashboard
> > ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Edward
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Edward Galvez
Survey Specialist
Learning & Evaluation
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, 


[Wikimedia-l] Candidature for the European Commission Open Science Policy Platform

2016-03-19 Thread Daniel Mietchen
Dear all,

the European Commission is setting up an advisory group for its Open
Science Agenda:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-policy-platform

This group - called 'Open Science Policy Platform' (OSPP) - has an
open call for candidates, and I am amongst those who have publicly
declared their interest in serving on this group.

Since many of my Open Science activities have a Wikimedia component, I
posted my candidacy at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/European_Commission_Open_Science_Policy_Platform
and would welcome endorsements from individuals and groups, especially
if you are active at the interface of Open Science with Wikimedia or
other open movements.

I also set up
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:European_Commission_Open_Science_Policy_Platform
in case others here would like to serve as candidates as well, which I
would welcome.

Thanks and cheers,

Daniel

___
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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread Sydney Poore
Hello Erik,

I don't disagree with the premise of your argument that an alternative
structure of the wikimedia movement would let some parts of the wikimedia
movement grow stronger and more effective in delivering a focused impact.

There is no doubt that North America could be self sustaining (people and
resources) with loads of thematic organizations, both affiliates and
independent.  The largest European Chapters would do fine.

The question is whether a Federation would actually strengthen the
diversity of the wikimedia movement or would it weaken the global mission?

The important element is a body of people in the wikimedia movement who
strongly embrace the diversity of the movement and make it the priority.

Currently there is weak support in the wikimedia movement for global
alliances. But the ones that have happened have given the wikimedia
movement a sense of unity. Like Wiki Loves Monuments and Art+Feminism.

Right now the central hub of the global movement is WMF. Despite other
recent problems. The WMF is doing a great job of regularly communicating
about the world wide movement.

There needs to be a successful transfer of the global mission to another
body/bodies or there is the risk that local growth will be even more uneven
than today.

Additionally, the core sense of a movement could be lost unless there is a
strong shared vision. Volunteers and donors contribute to a greater
movement because of the its mission.

So,a priority of a Federation would be to foster a strong shared mission.

Sydney





Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Now that the dust has settled a bit, I would like to expand on an idea
> that’s been touched on a few times (most recently, in an editorial by
> William Beutler [1]): the notion that WMF might be a more effective
> organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
> organizations and affiliates.
>
> I was very much part of building the current WMF in terms of both size
> and structure, but I also think recent events underscore the fragility
> of the current model. WMF is still tiny compared with other tech
> companies that operate popular websites, but it’s a vast organization
> by Wikimedia movement standards. With nearly 300 staff [2] (beyond
> even our ambitious 2015 strategic plan staffing numbers), it dwarfs
> any other movement org.
>
> I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
>
> 1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
> independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
> within that organization.
>
> 2) Focus. Wikimedia’s mission is very broad, and an organization with
> a clearly defined mandate is less likely to be pulled in many
> different directions -- at every level.
>
> 3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier
> to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants
> them to do.
>
> My experience is that growth tends to be self-reinforcing in budgetary
> processes if there are now clear ceilings established. I think that’s
> true in almost any organization. There’s always lots of work to do,
> and new teams will discover new gaps and areas into which they would
> like to expand. Hence, I would argue for the following:
>
> a) To establish 150 as the provisional ceiling for Wikimedia movement
> organizations. This is Dunbar’s number, and it has been used
> (sometimes intentionally, sometimes organically) as a limiting number
> for religious groups, military companies, corporate divisions, tax
> offices, and other human endeavors.  [3][4] This is very specifically
> because it makes organizational units more manageable and
> understandable for those who work there.
>
> b) To slowly, gradually identify parts of the WMF which would benefit
> from being spun off into independent organizations, and to launch such
> spin-offs, narrowing WMF's focus in the process.
>
> c) To aim to more clearly separate funding and evaluation
> responsibilities from programmatic work within the movement -- whether
> that work is keeping websites running, building software, or doing
> GLAM work.
>
> Note that I'm not proposing a quick splintering, but rather a slow and
> gradual process with lots of opportunity to course-correct.
>
> More on these points below.
>
> == Potential test case: MediaWiki Foundation ==
>
> A "MediaWiki Foundation" [5] has been proposed a few times and I
> suspect continues to have some currency within WMF. This org would not
> be focused on all WMF-related development work, but specifically on
> MediaWiki as software that has value to third parties. Its mission
> could include hosting services as earned income (and potentially as an
> extension of the Wikimedia movement’s mission).
>
> MediaWiki is used today by numerous nonprofit and educational projects
> that are aligned even with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia NYC proposal to broaden WMF nominations - submit today

2016-03-19 Thread Samuel Klein
I really appreciated your public effort, it also made the whole process
much clearer to those of us not part of a single regional chapter.

SJ
On Mar 18, 2016 14:03, "Pharos"  wrote:

> Hi fellow Wikimedians,
>
> We held our chapter's public meeting and open vote on March 16, and we
> found all the ten people running qualified to participate as candidates in
> the current WMF election.
>
> This is part of our chapter's policy to encourage a more diverse and more
> transparent process for the WMF board elections, and particularly to
> encourage non-traditional candidates whose inclusion we would find to
> benefit the overall elections process.
>
> We were glad to see three or four candidates join the process who would not
> have otherwise applied, and are also happy to see that several of the newer
> candidates have received endorsements from other chapters as well (even
> before our public vote).
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
> Wikimedia NYC
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:19 PM, phoebe ayers 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Pharos for making this offer and for outlining what your chapter
> > voting process will be! Both are good practices to bring to a process
> that
> > has in the past been generally opaque.
> >
> > Best,
> > Phoebe
> > On Mar 8, 2016 8:14 AM, "Pharos"  wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Pharos 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi fellow Wikimedians,
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia NYC is interested in opening up and diversifying the
> > Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation board nominations process (beyond the typical
> > > chapter-affiliated
> > > > candidates), so interested parties are welcomed to submit their
> > > > self-nominations today on Meta-Wiki, and we will consider all
> > reasonable
> > > > applications from around the world, and will endorse those
> > > non-traditional
> > > > candidates whose inclusion we would find to benefit the overall
> > elections
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > You just have to start the page for your nomination on Meta-Wiki
> today,
> > > > details can be filled in over the coming week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> > > >
> > > > Nominations must be in by UTC end of day March 8 on Meta-Wiki (which
> is
> > > > the global deadline), and Wikimedia NYC will formally make the choice
> > of
> > > > candidates to endorse for participation in the elections at its March
> > 16
> > > > 'WikiWednesday' public meeting, to be determined by an open vote of
> > > > attendees at that meeting.
> > > >
> > > > We also commit to having a vote at our public meeting in April or May
> > to
> > > > make our chapter's decision for the actual elections.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to write to us beforehand if you have questions.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pharos
> > > > Wikimedia NYC
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Lane Rasberry  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> The board of trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation has 10 seats. The
> > > >> office
> > > >> holders for 2 of these 10 seats will be selected in the "2016
> > > >> affiliate-selected board seats" process described at
> > > >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016>
> > > >>
> > > >> For a candidate to be considered in this election, they must be
> > > nominated
> > > >> by 8 March and endorsed by a voting Wikimedia organizational
> affiliate
> > > by
> > > >> 23 March.
> > > >>
> > > >> If anyone has any nomination to make, we are now in the last day!
> > > >> Nominations must be made by the end of 8 March! Make a nomination
> for
> > > >> yourself or another person at
> > > >> <
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> For those making a nomination, please follow up by soliciting for
> > > >> endorsement of the nomination from one voting organization. That
> > > >> endorsement must be posted by 23 March. Candidates in the election
> > must
> > > be
> > > >> nominated by the end of March 8 and must have their endorsement by
> 23
> > > >> March.
> > > >>
> > > >> Beyond nomination, please participate in the election by encouraging
> > all
> > > >> organizations which are eligible to vote to cast their vote later
> > during
> > > >> the voting period.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks - and forgive me if I misspoke in any part of this. I am
> > anxious
> > > >> about writing correctly and clearly. The official election
> > documentation
> > > >> is
> > > >> on-wiki.
> > > >>
> > > >> yours,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Lane Rasberry
> > > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > >> 206.801.0814
> > > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
> > > >> ___
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-19 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> > wrote:
> >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >> release an email?
> >
> > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
> >
> > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> > James and cc-ed to Pete.
> >
> > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>
> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> priority.  It has gone on too long.
> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> was redacted.




As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
here.[2]

There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
in this movement for long enough.

Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in
early January,[3]

Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used
above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good
faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good
Wikimedian" should assume the best.

Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this
information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full
transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be
published were the board and/or ED.

To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative.
Can we please put an end to it?

If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
gone on long enough.

Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving
queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]

Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=710334640#What_James_said_publicly
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=698861097
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_officer
___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread Lucas Teles
Hi, everyone.

It is being recently reported on Portuguese Wikipedia and Commons (at
least) the increasing ammount of improper editing coming from IP addresses
located in Angola. Some users believe that this may be related with
Wikipedia Zero and a partnership between WMF and a cellphone company [1]
that allows reading and editing at free cost.

One of the first reactions to that is a large range block that was just set
on Commons in order to prevent these edits [2], as they are being done in a
way that volunteers can't handle.

That seems to be some kind of "second wave" as the first that hit Commons
[3] had been already reported months ago [4] and seemed to be controled or
just paused for a while. On Portuguese Wikipedia, one thing that seemss to
be clear is that edits are done in good faith. However, they end by being
undone as they are incorrect for some reason, whether being pages of files
about themselves or just test edits. One of the users identified actually
confirm [5] that he is editing through Wikipedia Zero.

Concerning that more partnerships may occur in future, I think it is time
for us to start talking about ways of dealing with that, other than
blocking. Sadly, I don't have an answer to that problem, but I tend to
believe that some way of mass reaching these potential users should be made
out.

The current process is that editors will be the ones to notice that (as I
am not aware of any kind of follow up by WMF on that) and they will try to
solve their way, which may cause too many collateral damage.

I wonder if there is any kind of way to diminish the problem, by using any
off-wiki strategy.

Kind regards.

Teles

[1] -
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/movicel-offers-free-access-to-wikipedia--1116012
[2] -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steinsplitter=190598884#Unblock
[3] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case
[4] -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum=12835750#Wikipedia_Zero_being_used_to_violate_copyright
[5] -
https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Darwinius=prev=45095087


*Lucas Teles*

*+55 (71) 98290 7553Steward at Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator *
*at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*- wikipedista.com
___
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] User interaction on Wikipedia --call for submissions

2016-03-19 Thread Derek V.Giroulle

Hello everyone ,

I agree with Fae and Craig,
It's foreign jargon especially in this context , and on top of that 
jargon form a professional background where the term has been misused 
(imho)
It has in my jargon the connotation of obsessively recurring idea , like 
a depressed patient

always coming back to ideas of suicide : the suicidal ideation
It would be the only place where i would allow fosuch reductive jargon  
because it has precise meaning
i wouls never associate it with  idea generation or brainstorming what 
is wrong with using those words

as craig indicated : cringe worthy (business) jargon
the mere fact that product design (business ing general) is stealing a 
word form other jargon

show a lack of creativity of innovation

I would like to call on the communications dept to start  - and i can 
just picture someone for that task - a campaign

at WMF  to ban jargon  "simply says it better"


derek


On 16-03-16 04:39, Craig Franklin wrote:

Hi Moushira,

The problem when you use jargon like "ideation" in this context is that
you're essentially excluding anyone who isn't familiar with the particular
terminology used in the field.  Especially so when there are plenty of
plain-English alternatives that can be used in its place.  Note that there
is a whole bunch of thought from experts that that word in particular is a
particularly obnoxious piece of jargon:

* http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/26/pf/corporate-jargon/
* https://hbr.org/2008/08/why-jargon-feeds-on-lazy-minds.html
*
http://www.lifed.com/10-cringeworthy-business-jargon-examples-that-should-be-banned

It's hardly the worst example I've seen out of the WMF, but while we're on
the topic it should be pointed out.  Just because it's used elsewhere, it
doesn't mean that the WMF has to fall into the same trap.

Cheers,
Craig

On 16 March 2016 at 10:07, Moushira Elamrawy 
wrote:


Hello Fae,

Ideation phase [0], is a term widely used in product and design context.
Now, I see your point around how volunteers who are not related to these
fields, might not be familiar with it. Possibly something like, idea
generation, or brainstorming could have replaced it.

I am not sure though if the factors that you have listed are relevant; I
think it is a matter of using a word in a certain context where it actually
fits, without realizing how a broader audience would perceive it.

In any case, thanks for the note :-)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideation_%28creative_process%29

Moushira

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:


On 15 March 2016 at 22:33, Moushira Elamrawy 
wrote:
...

The reading team is launching an experiment that supports early

engagement

in ideation phase, with a wide variety of users.

...

Hi, sorry to target your email with a more general observation,
however there seems to be a lot of odd jargon in Wikimedia
announcements over the last few months. It would be great to see more
'official' emails aimed at volunteers, written in plain and
grammatically complete English. Phrases like "ideation phase" may be
frequently used during meetings at the Wikimedia Foundation offices,
but are unlikely to be heard in real life by volunteer contributors,
and are unlikely to be easily understood outside of corporate America,
especially by those without English as their first language.

Sorry again about picking at your announcement rather than any other,
it just stood out today.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
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] User interaction on Wikipedia --call for submissions

2016-03-19 Thread Oliver Keyes
While I agree with people that it's an uncommon and exclusionary
phrase (and a confusing one!) it seems like Moushira fully
acknowledges this and is going to work harder on this sort of problem
in the future, for which I laud her.

If we want to have a general conversation about language choice at the
WMF, broadly-construed, it seems like it would be best to kick off a
new thread to avoid the appearance of a pileon.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Derek V.Giroulle
 wrote:
> Hello everyone ,
>
> I agree with Fae and Craig,
> It's foreign jargon especially in this context , and on top of that jargon
> form a professional background where the term has been misused (imho)
> It has in my jargon the connotation of obsessively recurring idea , like a
> depressed patient
> always coming back to ideas of suicide : the suicidal ideation
> It would be the only place where i would allow fosuch reductive jargon
> because it has precise meaning
> i wouls never associate it with  idea generation or brainstorming what is
> wrong with using those words
> as craig indicated : cringe worthy (business) jargon
> the mere fact that product design (business ing general) is stealing a word
> form other jargon
> show a lack of creativity of innovation
>
> I would like to call on the communications dept to start  - and i can just
> picture someone for that task - a campaign
> at WMF  to ban jargon  "simply says it better"
>
>
> derek
>
>
>
> On 16-03-16 04:39, Craig Franklin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Moushira,
>>
>> The problem when you use jargon like "ideation" in this context is that
>> you're essentially excluding anyone who isn't familiar with the particular
>> terminology used in the field.  Especially so when there are plenty of
>> plain-English alternatives that can be used in its place.  Note that there
>> is a whole bunch of thought from experts that that word in particular is a
>> particularly obnoxious piece of jargon:
>>
>> * http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/26/pf/corporate-jargon/
>> * https://hbr.org/2008/08/why-jargon-feeds-on-lazy-minds.html
>> *
>>
>> http://www.lifed.com/10-cringeworthy-business-jargon-examples-that-should-be-banned
>>
>> It's hardly the worst example I've seen out of the WMF, but while we're on
>> the topic it should be pointed out.  Just because it's used elsewhere, it
>> doesn't mean that the WMF has to fall into the same trap.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig
>>
>> On 16 March 2016 at 10:07, Moushira Elamrawy 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Fae,
>>>
>>> Ideation phase [0], is a term widely used in product and design context.
>>> Now, I see your point around how volunteers who are not related to these
>>> fields, might not be familiar with it. Possibly something like, idea
>>> generation, or brainstorming could have replaced it.
>>>
>>> I am not sure though if the factors that you have listed are relevant; I
>>> think it is a matter of using a word in a certain context where it
>>> actually
>>> fits, without realizing how a broader audience would perceive it.
>>>
>>> In any case, thanks for the note :-)
>>>
>>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideation_%28creative_process%29
>>>
>>> Moushira
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 On 15 March 2016 at 22:33, Moushira Elamrawy 
 wrote:
 ...
>
> The reading team is launching an experiment that supports early

 engagement
>
> in ideation phase, with a wide variety of users.

 ...

 Hi, sorry to target your email with a more general observation,
 however there seems to be a lot of odd jargon in Wikimedia
 announcements over the last few months. It would be great to see more
 'official' emails aimed at volunteers, written in plain and
 grammatically complete English. Phrases like "ideation phase" may be
 frequently used during meetings at the Wikimedia Foundation offices,
 but are unlikely to be heard in real life by volunteer contributors,
 and are unlikely to be easily understood outside of corporate America,
 especially by those without English as their first language.

 Sorry again about picking at your announcement rather than any other,
 it just stood out today.

 Thanks,
 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 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] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

2016-03-19 Thread George Herbert
I think these are interesting discussions.  My first feedback -

Let's get as granular as possible about describing activities undertaken now.  
Leave out the "by who" and org structure for the moment.

For example, I can even see five tech organization activities.  Internal IT, 
website ops, back end dev, UI dev, and tools.

For every activity we need to understand who the customer(s) are.  Is that "the 
reader", "free information concept globally", "the editor", "the foundation 
organization(s)", "researchers", "the board", "large benefactors/donors", 
"global movement", etc.  This is not complete, please add to it.

Customer focus is where we understand all the roles and customers, and align 
organizationally so that orgs or sub orgs have as good a focus on a smaller 
customer set and roles set as possible.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
> 2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W :
>> I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the best
>> way would be to facilitate this conversation.
>> 
>> Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for discussion?
> 
> Hi Pine,
> 
> Thanks for the comments! I wanted to start here to get a sense if
> people are supportive of the idea(s) in general. In my experience a
> listserv is good for kicking things around a bit before getting too
> emotionally invested. ;-) And this list has a good cross-set of folks
> with different backgrounds including WMF and affiliates. If there's a
> general sense that this is worth exploring further, then I'd be more
> than happy to help organize pages on Meta, e.g. to think about
> specific spin-offs like the MediaWiki Foundation (if there isn't
> already an extant proposal for it).
> 
>> On the WMF side, I'm wondering how this would fit into their annual
>> planning. Their plan is supposed to be published on April 1. This
>> discussion will need resources from WMF's end in the form of staff time,
>> including Katherine's, as well as Board time. The required investment in
>> the short term will be modest, but cumulatively through the year it may be
>> significant, particularly if the discussions get momentum. So I'm wondering
>> how, at this point, it would be possible to take these discussions into
>> account in the WMF AP.
> 
> Unless WMF plans to dramatically expand in the next fiscal (which I
> doubt), I think this discussion can and needs to happen on its own
> timeline. I expect that if WMF suggests to depart a bit from what's
> written into a one-year plan, with good reasons, the institutions of
> the movement will have the flexibility to accommodate that.
> 
> I also understand WMF folks are very busy with the plan right now, and
> I don't think there's special urgency to this conversation, which is
> one with lots of long term implications. I do hope folks have a chance
> to weigh in, but if that happens over the course of few weeks/months
> in different venues, I personally think that's fine.
> 
>> This series of operations, while complicated, may yield a more resilient
>> movement in the end, possibly with more combined funding, more
>> accountability and transparency, and more credibility.
> 
> Yes, I hope so. :) But let's take it slowly and poke at this from
> different angles to see if it makes sense.
> 
> Warmly,
> 
> Erik
> 
> ___
> 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] any open search engine for web project starting

2016-03-19 Thread Erik Moeller
2016-03-18 21:44 GMT-07:00 SarahSV :
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, carl hansen 
> wrote:
>
>> https://about.commonsearch.org/
>>
>> "We are building a nonprofit search engine for the Web"
>>
>> Sounds alot like Knowledge Engine, if there were such a thing.
>> Any overlap with wikimedia projects?

> Thanks for the link, Carl. Erik and Lydia are advisors, so perhaps they
> could say a bit more about it.

Sylvain has been working on this stuff for a while, blissfully
ignorant of Wikimedia's discussions of search engines, rocketships and
so on. He reached out to me shortly before the public announcement and
we've talked a bit about governance, community & funding models. I've
agreed to provide some continued advice along the way but have not
otherwise been involved.

He recently posted on wikitech-l asking for suggestions how
Wikipedia/Wikidata could be integrated:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2016-March/084984.html

There's a lot of heavy lifting still until Common Search can become a
viable project even for narrowly defined purposes but I think it's a
very worthwhile effort. It also is -- I think correctly -- based on
the largest pre-existing open effort to index the web, the Common
Crawl. This could lead to a mutually beneficial relationship between
Common Search and Common Crawl. From a Wikimedia perspective, it might
develop into an opportunity to jointly showcase some of the amazing
stuff that Wikidata can already do.

Erik

___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

2016-03-19 Thread Adele Vrana
Hi Teles,

As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.

Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
(and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.

In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload of
copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular challenge
of the extra work this causes for existing community members.

Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form (like
huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware of
this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to Community
Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.

We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we would
prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from zero
rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this issue.
As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.

With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you and
the list here.

On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber counts)
and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s not
enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.

However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
opportunity to learn how to deal with new readers and editors.

Best regards,
Adele

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which are really
> interesting to read -- read them in english --
> https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf  of course I dont expect
> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they
> do know the principles of it and what they can do
>
> some points of interest
>
>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>by the press or broadcast
>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
> photographic
>process by  documentation centres  or teaching organisations
>. refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
>Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
>reproduce
>- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
>after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are
>having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage
>uploading of media
>
>
> Wikipedia zero implementation needs to also consider the implication of
> local laws especially copyright on the projects where the laws are this
> outdated and effectively enable copyright issues then WP Zero could provide
> a read only option for IP's or a no upload option,  with a rights request
> process on commons
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 00:45, Lucas Teles  wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > It is being recently reported on Portuguese Wikipedia and Commons (at
> > least) the increasing ammount of improper editing coming from IP
> addresses
> > located in Angola. Some users believe that this may be related with
> > Wikipedia Zero