[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia UK - Consultation on draft strategic framework 2016 - 19

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

Dear all

Over the past few months I have been leading the process of reviewing and
refreshing Wikimedia UK's strategic framework, and developing a new
business plan for 2016 - 19. The draft strategic framework sets out a new
vision for the charity and I would welcome feedback from the wider global
community about our proposed direction of travel:

https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/2016_Strategy_Consultation

The planned outputs from the strategic planning process will be a clear,
concise strategic framework for the period 2016 to 2019, which outlines our
vision, mission, values, planned outcomes, strategic goals and objectives
and major programme strands, plus a three year business plan which puts the
strategy in context, articulating the external context and drivers, planned
priorities and programmes for the three year period and internal resources
including staffing and funding.

You can respond to the consultation by *Monday 30th May 2016 *by adding
your thoughts to the talk page or by sending an email to me on
lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk.

Thanks and best wishes
Lucy


-- 

Lucy Crompton-Reid

Chief Executive

Wikimedia UK

+44 (0) 207 065 0991



Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.

Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent
non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility
for its contents.*
___
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] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Bishakha Datta]

As one of the former board liaisons to the FDC, this is one of the threads
I regularly follow on wikimedia-l.

Am so happy to see the FDC going from strength to strength. It remains a
radical exercise in volunteer-led funding allocation, a model that is
unusual to begin with, and that I've rarely seen operate with such rigour.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any other volunteer-led funding
models. Are there others?

Congratulations to all of you who make it happen,
Bishakha

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> For the ones who do not read the complete text, i see the key sentences to
> be (for WMF and the Board)
>
> *WMF to view its actions as leveraging a /network effect/ utilising the
> resources of the global movement.
>
> *For an international organization [Board&WMF], there is an apparent
> overall lack of global diversity
>
> I do hope that these key needs will be reflected not only in operative
> actions but also in the recruitment of a new ED.
>
> A resource centre in SF*combined* with the people, local organisations and
> learnings from all over our movement will be a formula for success that
> will enable us to reach our vision
>
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2016-05-15 kl. 21:55, skrev Anders Wennersten:
>
>> Thanks, for once, again a very thorough work done by FDC.
>>
>> I find it very encouraging to see that this committee is able to continue
>> with its good quality in its assessments and also to see it growing as a
>> role model in integrity and also truly representing the community in values
>> and experience gained from activities from our affiliates/chapters.
>>
>> I do hope that you, both as a role model and in your hand fast
>> recommendations, can help both the Board and WMF to also evolve into role
>> models and fully taking in the learning from all parts of the movement. And
>> that you will continue guide and follow up on the work in the chapters
>> having employees.
>>
>> Anders
>>
>> Now having read through all text twice, and enjoyed it a lot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 2016-05-15 kl. 19:29, skrev matanya moses:
>>
>>> Hello Wikimedians,
>>>
>>> Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help make
>>> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
>>> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For this round, we met
>>> in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five plans and proposals, which
>>> were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the
>>> Centre for Internet and Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this
>>> round for submitting these proposals.
>>>
>>> We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan
>>> grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The Board will
>>> review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.
>>>
>>> This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, and
>>> we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants (though
>>> grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we reviewed all
>>> of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We were assisted in
>>> this review with some input from the FDC staff assessments and analysis on
>>> impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these
>>> recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
>>>
>>> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round
>>> 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
>>> by 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal process outlined
>>> in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation
>>> should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two
>>> non-voting WMF Board representative to the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The
>>> appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the Board
>>> Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision
>>> on this and all recommendations by 1 July 2016.
>>>
>>> Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by
>>> anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint should
>>> be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly document the
>>> complaint, and investigate as needed.
>>>
>>> On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home countries,
>>> so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,
>>>
>>> On behalf of the FDC,
>>>
>>> Matanya [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Anders Wennersten]

For the ones who do not read the complete text, i see the key sentences 
to be (for WMF and the Board)


*WMF to view its actions as leveraging a /network effect/ utilising the 
resources of the global movement.


*For an international organization [Board&WMF], there is an apparent 
overall lack of global diversity


I do hope that these key needs will be reflected not only in operative 
actions but also in the recruitment of a new ED.


A resource centre in SF*combined* with the people, local organisations 
and learnings from all over our movement will be a formula for success 
that will enable us to reach our vision



Anders




Den 2016-05-15 kl. 21:55, skrev Anders Wennersten:

Thanks, for once, again a very thorough work done by FDC.

I find it very encouraging to see that this committee is able to 
continue with its good quality in its assessments and also to see it 
growing as a role model in integrity and also truly representing the 
community in values and experience gained from activities from our 
affiliates/chapters.


I do hope that you, both as a role model and in your hand fast 
recommendations, can help both the Board and WMF to also evolve into 
role models and fully taking in the learning from all parts of the 
movement. And that you will continue guide and follow up on the work 
in the chapters having employees.


Anders

Now having read through all text twice, and enjoyed it a lot






Den 2016-05-15 kl. 19:29, skrev matanya moses:

Hello Wikimedians,

Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help 
make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to 
achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For 
this round, we met in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five 
plans and proposals, which were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, 
Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the Centre for Internet and 
Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the Wikimedia 
Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this round 
for submitting these proposals.


We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual 
plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The 
Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.


This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, 
and we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants 
(though grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we 
reviewed all of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We 
were assisted in this review with some input from the FDC staff 
assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well 
as community comments on the proposals.


There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these 
recommendations. Here are the steps for both:


Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s 
Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives 
to the FDC by 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal 
process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge 
the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word 
summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representative to 
the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, 
[4] and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking 
applicant. The Board will publish its decision on this and all 
recommendations by 1 July 2016.


Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by 
anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint 
should be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly 
document the complaint, and investigate as needed.


On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home 
countries, so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,


On behalf of the FDC,

Matanya [1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Thank you Anders and Dariusz for the warm words.

The FDC invested a lot of time to write the recommendations, espcially in
regards to the WMF plan. Good to know that you've read the entire (long)
document :)


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Many thanks for the hard work. As I've been an observer to this round, and
> as a former chair of the FDC for six rounds, I can attest that you have
> done a very good job, discussing the details of all proposals.
>
> While people may disagree with your recommendations or opinions, the
> diligent approach and due care are, in my view, indisputable.
>
> Best,
>
> Dj
> 15.05.2016 7:30 PM "matanya moses"  napisał(a):
>
> > Hello Wikimedians,
> >
> > Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help make
> > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For this round, we
> met
> > in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five plans and proposals, which
> > were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France,
> the
> > Centre for Internet and Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this
> > round for submitting these proposals.
> >
> > We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan
> > grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The Board will
> > review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.
> >
> > This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, and
> > we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants (though
> > grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we reviewed all
> > of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We were assisted in
> > this review with some input from the FDC staff assessments and analysis
> on
> > impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
> > proposals.
> >
> > There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these
> > recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
> >
> > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
> by
> > 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal process outlined
> in
> > the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation
> > should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two
> > non-voting WMF Board representative to the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The
> > appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the
> Board
> > Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision
> > on this and all recommendations by 1 July 2016.
> >
> > Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by
> > anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint
> should
> > be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly document
> the
> > complaint, and investigate as needed.
> >
> > On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home countries,
> > so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,
> >
> > On behalf of the FDC,
> >
> > Matanya [1]
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

The FB page owners are Ricky Setiawan and Jens Liebenau.

 Ricky Setiawan is Member of the Board of Trustees at Wikimedia Indonesia.

https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/info/?tab=page_owners

Regards,

Yann

2016-05-16 10:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget :

> Hi,
>
> Actually I don't control the FB page.
> I was just interested to spread awareness of Wikimedia Commons on Facebook.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2016-05-16 9:07 GMT+02:00 Steinsplitter Wiki 
> :
>
>> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i
>> talked with Yann - it wasn't him.
>>
>> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted
>> him access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>>
>> Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.
>>
>> --Steinsplitter
>>
>> [1]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton
>>
>> > From: jameso...@gmail.com
>> > Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
>> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
>> votinghas started
>> >
>> > Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
>> > volunteers
>> >  (I
>> don't
>> > think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start),
>> I'd
>> > encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem
>> with
>> > their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be
>> the
>> > "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
>> > some points against them.
>> >
>> > For those interested:
>> >
>> > I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
>> > frequently (Especially the Wikimedia  &
>> > Wikipedia  twitter and the Wikipedia FB
>> page
>> > ) purposely follow a set of Best
>> > Practices
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts
>> >
>> > that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned
>> or
>> > co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
>> > public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
>> > images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
>> > copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
>> >
>> > On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
>> > sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many
>> free
>> > licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
>> > modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience
>> who
>> > we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
>> > copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against
>> the
>> > SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
>> > they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
>> > general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences
>> well
>> > think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
>> > share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact,
>> contrary
>> > to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
>> > they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
>> > posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official
>> Twitter
>> > and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
>> >
>> > James Alexander
>> > User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Peter,
>> > >
>> > > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
>> > >
>> > > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
>> > > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences
>> fo
>> > > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to
>> Facebook
>> > > (and by implication to similar sites).
>> > >
>> > > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
>> > >
>> > > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
>> > > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
>> > >
>> > > eg:
>> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
>> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
>> > >
>> > > Toby
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
>> > > > Peter
>> > > >
>> > > > -Original Message-
>> > > > Fro

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Actually I don't control the FB page.
I was just interested to spread awareness of Wikimedia Commons on Facebook.

Regards,

Yann

2016-05-16 9:07 GMT+02:00 Steinsplitter Wiki :

> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i
> talked with Yann - it wasn't him.
>
> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted
> him access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>
> Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton
>
> > From: jameso...@gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
> votinghas started
> >
> > Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> > volunteers
> >  (I
> don't
> > think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start),
> I'd
> > encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem
> with
> > their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be
> the
> > "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> > some points against them.
> >
> > For those interested:
> >
> > I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> > frequently (Especially the Wikimedia  &
> > Wikipedia  twitter and the Wikipedia FB
> page
> > ) purposely follow a set of Best
> > Practices
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts
> >
> > that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned
> or
> > co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> > public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> > images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> > copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> >
> > On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> > sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> > licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> > modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience
> who
> > we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> > copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against
> the
> > SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> > they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> > general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> > think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> > share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> > to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> > they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> > posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> > and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> >
> > James Alexander
> > User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> > >
> > > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences
> fo
> > > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to
> Facebook
> > > (and by implication to similar sites).
> > >
> > > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> > >
> > > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
> > >
> > > eg:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
> voting
> > > has
> > > > started
> > > >
> > > > Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started:
> > > > https:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Alessandro Marchetti]

I agree about the meta discussion, but maybe not just about this account. It is 
an issue for all platform-related web accounts, in the end. If there is nothing 
else that page would be kinda of a "precedent" of the issue at meta level. I 
have been trying to learn more about it actually, but I faced on wiki platforms 
a very fragmented scenario.
The reason I am looking around is because I've tried to discuss some similar 
aspects in the mailing list of WM Italy last week. I was talking about existing 
and potential facebook groups regarding local areas (such as "region X on 
wikipedia"), which are useful to attract new editors, contacts (local 
associations, aldermen...) or contents.
Now, it seems to me that some aspects apply to the general case of social 
accounts "related" to main WMF platforms. Just an example: I pointed out for 
example how the presence amongst the volunteers or managers of users with 
advanced flag (e.g. OTRS permission in my example) would be useful in some 
circumstances.
We should really promote a request for comments on the issue. It would be very 
interesting and help to share valuable expertise. 

Il Lunedì 16 Maggio 2016 9:08, Steinsplitter Wiki 
 ha scritto:
 

 As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
with Yann - it wasn't him.

The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].

Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting    
> has started
> 
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
>  (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia  &
> Wikipedia  twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> ) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> 
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> 
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> 
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann 
> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> >
> > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences fo
> > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to Facebook
> > (and by implication to similar sites).
> >
> > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> >
> > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > uploading "Pictures of the day

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki
 wrote:
> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
> with Yann - it wasn't him.

Umm, didnt we have a larger team of volunteers who managed the Commons
page?  IIRC, WMF removed them all, and I assume the WMF now determines
who has access to the account.

> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
> access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>
> [1] 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

Also blocked indefinitely on br.wikimedia.org by Teles with a curious
block message (sincronizando com bloqueio em conta principal).

https://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/Rodrigo.Argenton

Hopefully that can be cleared up.

Yann & Rodrigo should be able to say who posted these, as all managers
can see which manager authored each post on the page.

https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0

Obviously the media licensing needs to be followed carefully by
whoever is a Facebook manager.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
with Yann - it wasn't him.

The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].

Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
> has started
> 
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
>  (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia  &
> Wikipedia  twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> ) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> 
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> 
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> 
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann 
> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> >
> > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences fo
> > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to Facebook
> > (and by implication to similar sites).
> >
> > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> >
> > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
> >
> > eg:
> > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
> > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
> > has
> > > started
> > >
> > > Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015.
> > > There are many excellent finalists.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ___
> > > 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/lis