[Wikimedia-l] Conflict of Interest Guideline 3

[James Salsman]

Does Guideline 3 of https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:
Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest
include questions from the community?

Is it ever appropriate to try to negotiate limits to answers to such
questions in private communications?

"Best solutions to avoid conflict of interests is communicating about them
openly and being transparent."

-- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
/Documentation/12
___
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] Fwd: Opening the 2016 Values discussion

[Guillaume Paumier]

Reposting in case it didn't make it to the list (and because more
exposure can't hurt an any case.)


-- Forwarded message --
From: Guillaume Paumier 
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM
Subject: Opening the 2016 Values discussion
To: Wikimedia-announce 


Greetings,

As a community, we've talked a lot about values in the past year. The
core values of the Wikimedia Foundation were first formulated in
2007−2008 and have not really been discussed in depth since then. In
2013, we also developed Guiding principles, a list of more practical
norms and expected behaviors that guide our day-to-day work at the
Foundation. Combined with our vision and mission statements, those
documents represent the core facets of our organizational identity.

Both staff and volunteers have expressed concerns that there isn't
currently a shared understanding (among the staff and other
constituents) of what our core values are, and how we express them in
our work. We've also talked about a need to revisit or reinforce them.

A few months ago, a working group formed to organize a series of new
discussions about the WMF's values. The goal is to reflect on what is
bringing us together, identify the core beliefs that motivate our
vision, refine our list of values, and clarify our organizational
identity.

Discussions about values in nonprofit organizations are usually done
internally. Given the open and collaborative nature of the Wikimedia
movement, such a closed, internal process wouldn't make sense for the
WMF. The Foundation is part of an integrated ecosystem of individuals
and organizations that contribute to defining its identity. Input
should be collected not just from staff and Board members, but also
from volunteers, affiliates, and partners who wish to participate in
this process.

On behalf of the Values working group, I would therefore like to
invite you to this discussion on Meta. There, you will find more
information about the process, as well as a page to share your
perspective on the Wikimedia Foundation's values. The framing that
we're using for this discussion is one that considers values as the
core intrinsic beliefs that drive our participation in the movement.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion

The discussion will be open for a month, i.e. until November 20.
Comments added after that date will still be welcome, but may not be
included in the summary process.

I hope many of you take this opportunity to help define (or refine)
the Foundation's organizational identity.

--
Guillaume Paumier
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] Repost: Technical Collaboration Guideline

[Keegan Peterzell]

Thanks to Pine for pointing out that some emails to WikimediaAnnounce-l
were not going through to Wikimedia-l; I think this is such a post. I
originally sent this on 24 October, and the only thing in the list archive
is a reply from SarahSV, thanking us for the work [2] (much appreciated, by
the way).

So, here is what I sent in case someone missed it. If you've seen it
already, you can disregard. Thanks in advance.

Greetings,
> Wikimedians, please review something we are working on for the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the Technical Collaboration Guideline [0].
> The Technical Collaboration Guideline (TCG) is a set of best practice
> recommendations, for planning and communicating product and project
> information to Wikimedia communities, in order to work better, together.
> The TCG allows Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Product teams and Wikimedia
> communities to work together in a systematic way in the product development
> and deployment cycle. It is hoped that the TCG is useful enough to be
> utilized in planning and communications regarding any project, from anyone.
> The TCG is intended to be flexible as plans and products change in
> development; it is a guide whose contents will help build collaborative
> relationships.
> The initial draft of the TCG was written after discussions in small groups
> with members of the Community Liaisons and Product Management teams, to
> identify successes and failures in communication, and what we can do to
> encourage collaboration with the communities. Over the next month, I am
> seeking review and feedback from Wikimedia community members. All feedback
> that is left will be read; if there is a case for immediate action, it will
> be made. All feedback will be taken into consideration when editing the
> next draft of the TCG. Please keep in mind that the TCG is intended to be
> lightweight information and instruction and will not be completely
> comprehensive. The TCG and the conversations about it are in English, but
> comments from all languages are welcome.
> Over the next few days, this invitation for review will be distributed
> across the wikis.
> Also, within the coming weeks, I'll be announcing a review on behalf of
> the WMF's Design team. They have been working diligently over the past few
> months to identify and define the purpose of design within the WMF, and
> they are looking forward to sharing this statement of purpose with the
> broader Wikimedia movement for comment. If you're interested, please be on
> the lookout for this review announcement.
> I look forward to reading your comments on the wiki [1].


0. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guideline

1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Technical_Collaboration_Guideline

2.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-October/085298.html

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Technical Collaboration Specialist
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] Personal Update

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Sam,  Thanks you for your views.  Referring to the possible conflicts
between Wikimedia and Quora, you say that "there is almost no current
overlap between the organizations' main projects".  Whether or not this is
true right now, it is entirely possible that it may not be true in future,
and I gave an example that you did not address (Knowledge Engine).  The WMF
is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of
free multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content
of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge", committed to "a
world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge"  Quora's business is to "share and grow the world’s knowledge".
It is not at all obvious to me that these can never be in conflict, indeed
they seem quite remarkably similar, with the signficant exception of the
profit element.  Is there some demarcation agreement that we have not been
told about?

"Rogol"
___
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] Personal Update

[Sam Klein]

Kelly:  Wonderful news; congratulations, and thanks for the update.
Christophe, thank you for that thoughtful addendum.

Rogol:

> The point of [my comment] was that the process of managing

Kelly's conflict of interest will deprive the Board of a source of advice
>

I don't see why this should deprive the Board of her advice in the
slightest.
(It's also not how boards usually work when members are involved with other
organizations / companies / communities in the same space.)

She will have to recuse herself from decisions (not discussion or advising)
where there might be a conflict between WMF and Quora – Just as Jimmy has
long recused himself from decisions where there might be one between WMF
and Wikia. But the number of such decisions will probably be tiny and not
central to governance.

When it comes to strategy in particular, there is almost no current overlap
between the organizations' main projects.  Wikimedia communities have
largely restricted their focus to the << 0.1% of global knowledge that is
notable, verifiable, neutral, and {PD, CC-BY, CC-SA}, boiled that knowledge
down to a single coherent overview per topic/work/datum/term/place.  Quora
is dominated by current events, pop culture, trending and future businesses
and ideas; by repeated variations and explanations of a theme, by
hypotheticals and subjective (if community-polished) opinion; and its
material is close to CC-ND, or no-reuse.  If there is significant overlap
between Quora's and Wikimedia's scope or discovery services in the next
decade, I will be surprised.

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

[Wikimedia-l] WikimediaAnnounce-l not always forwarding to Wikimedia-l

[Pine W]

Just an FYI that this is a problem again. I filed
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149381 last week. If you send something
to WikimediaAnnounce-l with the intention of it being forwarded to
Wikimedia-l, you may want to add Wikimedia-l explicitly to your To: field
until this is fixed.

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/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] New edition of the Signpost

[Wikipedia Signpost]

The Signpost – Volume 12, Issue 28 – 4 November 2016



News and notes: Finally, a new CTO; trustee joins Quora; copyright upgrade
impending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/News_and_notes

In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/In_the_media

Wikicup: Winners announced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Wikicup

Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Discussion_report

Featured content: Cream of the crop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Featured_content

Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation
templates now flag open access content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Technology_report

Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Arbitration_report

Traffic report: Un-presidential politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Traffic_report

Recent research: Why women edit less, and where they are overrepresented;
article importance and quality; predicting elections from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-04/Recent_research


Single-page view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost



--
Signpost team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost
___
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] DEITYBOUNCE and reader logs (was Re: Introducing Victoria Coleman, WMF Chief Technology Officer)

[Pine W]

James, thanks for bringing up that NYTimes article. Having taken a quick
look at it, it does raise some concerns but I would consider it a matter
worthy of further inquiry rather than a red flag. In Wikimedia we have our
own issues with trying to have an "open society" type atmosphere while
keeping a lid on sockpuppetry and other problematic behaviors, and if the
goal of that program was to keep bad-faith individuals out of what should
be highly secure systems then I would be more accepting than I would be if
the goal was to do large scale surveillance of Internet traffic. I would
consider it to be a big deal if someone applying for a WMF role was
involved in facilitating large-scale intrusive surveillance, whether in the
public or private sectors. The program described in that NYTimes link would
be problematic from my perspective, but a bit less so than some of the
other kinds of mass surveillance that have been implemented over the years
by both government and private-sector actors.

I have some other thoughts on this topic, including about Katherine's
comments, but I've got some other time-sensitive issues that I need to
address in the next few days. Hopefully I'll have a chance to comment on
other aspects of this thread by the end of Monday. Other people may want to
share their thoughts in the meantime.

Thanks for your vigilance,

Pine



On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:19 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Katherine Maher wrote:
> >
> >... If you have further questions about Victoria’s work with the U.S.
> > Department of Defense, it is/should soon be a matter of U.S.
> > Congressional record. Her findings and recommendations will also
> > be a matter of public record, as all government work should be.
> > However, the U.S. Congress isn’t always the speediest of
> > institutions, so we will also keep an eye on when they publish
> > further information.
>
> Well, it's in the New York Times under her maiden name:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/world/threats-responses-
> surveillance-terror-tracking-agency-weighed-but-discarded-plan.html
>
> "The Pentagon research agency that is exploring how to create a vast
> database of electronic transactions and analyze them for potential
> terrorist activity considered but rejected another surveillance idea:
> tagging Internet data with unique personal markers to make anonymous
> use of some parts of the Internet impossible
>
> "The plan, known as eDNA, called for developing a new version of the
> Internet that would include enclaves where it would be impossible to
> be anonymous while using the network
>
> "Darpa awarded a $60,000 contract to SRI International, a research
> concern based in Menlo Park, Calif., to investigate the concept. SRI
> then convened the workshop in August to evaluate its feasibility
>
> "The workshop was led by Mr. Blaze and Dr. Victoria Stavridou, an SRI
> computer scientist, one of those who had originally discussed the eDNA
> concept with Darpa officials
>
> "At one point, Mr. Blaze reported to the group that he had been
> ''fired'' by Dr. Stavridou, of SRI, from his appointed role of writing
> the report presenting that consensus.
>
> "In e-mail messages, several participants said they believed that Dr.
> Stavridou was hijacking the report and that the group's consensus
> would not be reported to Darpa
>
> "Dr. Stavridou told the other panelists, 'Darpa asked SRI to organize
> the meeting because they have a deep interest in technology for
> identifying network miscreants and revoking their network
> privileges.'"
>
> Also I would like to know what "Orwellian philosophy" is
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01211002
>
> ___
> 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] Personal Update

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Christophe writes "suggesting a Board member should resign and at the same
time saying the process was properly followed, is not ok".  I am not sure
exactly what he means to convey by this, but I am not aware that anyone
posting to this thread has said anything that can be described in this
way.

In the unlikely event that he thinks this is what I myself was saying, I
suggest he read my comment again (at least one other contributor has had no
difficulty in understanding it).  The point of it was that the process of
managing Kelly's conflict of interest will deprive the Board of a source of
advice which is undesirable when the Board already has two vacancies and no
clearly expressed plans to fill them.  It appears that he disagrees, which
is, of course, OK.

If Christophe believes that any postings in this thread have expressed
criticisms or concerns in a manner which he regards as improper, he should
say clearly what he objects to and why he objects to it.  Merely issuing
general instructions to the generality of list members to treat the Board
in general with greater respect is likely to prove counter-productive.

"Rogol"
___
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] Personal Update

[Christophe Henner]

Hi everyone,

On the process, Kelly notified Katherine and myself about the possibility
of conflict shortly after receiving an offer from Quora, in accordance with
the Foundation's Conflict of Interest Policy.[1] Kelly wanted to make sure
the issue was transparently disclosed to the full Board and the Wikimedia
community, and if there were any conflicts, address them directly. She was
very explicit about handling this in any way that was best for Wikimedia.

Kelly then met with Michelle and Stephen. They reviewed the Foundation’s
conflict of interest rules in depth, and worked with her to develop a plan
to manage the potential for a conflict. As you know, our mission is to
empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop
educational content under a free license[2] or in the public domain, and to
disseminate it effectively and globally.

We would in fact encourage people to see the benefit in our Trustees having
relevant expertise to our mission and operations. In addition to her
financial expertise, Kelly now brings the perspective of another
organization’s experiences supporting a large, dynamic community of
volunteers who create and share knowledge. These volunteers - some of whom
are also Wikimedians - are also passionate about the way their platform,
product, organization, and community supports them. There are many ways the
Foundation, and by extension, the movement, could benefit from learning
from Quora’s successes and challenges.

Kelly proactively disclosed the issue to the Board officers, the full
Board, and the Wikimedia community. Her professional experience as a CFO
means that she is conscientious about conflict rules, and ready to do what
is best for the Wikimedia movement. The Board of Trustees is fortunate to
have her volunteer service, and we are confident that we can address any
issues that may arise.

Now, on a more personal level, I’m really sad to witness the tone of
certain emails in this thread. The Board learned its lessons, and you have
here a factual proof about our commitment to be open with you all.

Criticism and concerns are, of course, to be voiced, but in a proper
manner. With the events we all went through in the past few months,
suggesting a Board member should resign and at the same time saying the
process was properly followed, is not ok.

If there’s one thing we should have learned is that it is when we respect,
listen, and pay attention to each other, we can achieve more.

I do understand and respect the current higher level of scrutiny on Board
actions, but respect is never optional.

Best,

Christophe

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy
The Foundation's Conflict of Interest Policy ensures that Board members
disclose their possible conflicts to the rest of the Board, and recuse
themselves from discussions as appropriate. When Board members raise a
potential conflict of interest, we talk with them about their legal duties
(which you can read about in the Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook) and
our policies on Conflicts of Interest and Pledge of Personal Commitment.
Additionally, we keep an up-to-date questionnaire on potential conflicts,
which is also updated on an annual basis with all Board members and
reviewed by the General Counsel. The Foundation has recently reviewed our
conflict of interest procedures against other comparable non-profit
organizations, and I'm confident that our system appropriately thorough and
rigorous.


[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content



Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chen...@wikimedia.org
+33650664739

twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*



On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> In case my blanket "I disagree" left doubt, let me state very clearly --
> I'm not seeking anybody's resignation here. (Just reread Dan's message and
> realized it's possible the beginning of my response could be read that way,
> though I think I'm pretty clear further down.)
> -Pete
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Dan, I disagree. Three points:
> >
> > 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody resign;
> > nobody on this list has asked her to resign. Best not to exaggerate.
> >
> > 2. It is true that there is a higher level of scrutiny of the board than
> > there has been in the past. We should not forget that in the last year,
> the
> > board or its members:
> > * Ousted a community-selected member, for reasons generally regarded as
> > frivolous and insufficient;
> > * Defamed that same person following his ouster
> > * Appointed a new member with insufficient vetting, who subsequently had
> > to resign under pressure
> > * Lost another community-selected member, who cited reasons he had been
> > explicitly aware of during his candidacy
> > * Appointed a member to a community-selected seat who had not, in fact,
> > been selected by the community (I don't think this was actually a bad
> move
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference: Join us in Berlin in March 2017

[Christian Rickerts]

Wikimedia Conference 2017 in Berlin

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2017

Date: March 31–April 2, 2017

Registration: November 18–January 8, 2016

Dear Wikimedians,

It is my pleasure to invite Wikimedia Affiliates, the WMF Board of Trustees
and staff, the Affiliations Committee, and the Funds Dissemination
Committee to join us in Berlin for the Wikimedia Conference 2017. The
conference is hosted by Wikimedia Deutschland and will take place from March
31 to April 2, 2017. WMCON17 is made possible by the financial support of
WMF and we are working closely together to make this event a success.

As in 2016, the Wikimedia Conference will have three programmatic tracks
that are closely intertwined:

WMCON will be one of the platforms where conversations on Movement
Strategy will
happen. In Berlin, we want to work on developing a strategic vision for the
future of our movement and use the opportunity to shape our identity,
collaboration and responsibilities together.

The Movement Partnerships track will address questions around building
sustainable partnerships. We will work on ways of developing partnerships
with content and funding partners as well as like-minded organizations.

Capacity Building & Learning will again focus on practical support and
sharing of experiences among Wikimedia organizations and groups.

You are invited to join us for three days of working, thinking, and
learning. Bringing all movement organizations and groups together will give
us the opportunity to incorporate diverse perspectives and experiences into
the program.

In the coming days, you will hear more about the program design process
from the curator of the Wikimedia Conference, Nicole Ebber, and the Program
and Engagement Coordinator, Cornelius Kibelka. Together with Wenke Storn
and Daniela Genter from our event team they will keep you updated about all
things program and logistics in the coming weeks and months.

On behalf of Wikimedia Deutschland, I am looking forward to welcoming you
in Berlin in March.

Kind regards,

Christian Rickerts
Geschäftsführender Vorstand / Executive Director

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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] 2015 - 2016 Fundraising Report just published

[Chris Keating]

*bump*

Just wondered whether anyone had been able to look in more detail at what
the legal/data protection barriers to releasing statistics broken down by
country are?

I'd be particularly interested to see how WMF is doing at securing repeat
donations and tax-efficient donations from the UK, as I just received an
appeal email with a link to a form that was not really optimised to do
either (generally speaking if someone is being asked for a £10 one-off
gift, asking them for a £10 monthly gift doesn't get many monthly gifts)

Chris

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> I can understand that if there are countries with very small numbers of
> donors you wouldn't want to give country-by-country breakdowns. But
> national charities report on how much money they raise all the time without
> any legal barriers, so I doubt there can be barriers to WMF reporting by
> country for most countries
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:42 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
>> Joseph Seddon wrote:
>> >Lodewijk: So just as last year, fundraising totals have been posted by
>> >region but there is currently no public data for donations from each
>> >country. It's felt that the regional breakdown at least provides a
>> >compromise between providing a semi-decent view of where our donations
>> >come from while at the same time respecting privacy and other legal
>> >reasons that is associated with releasing country level data.
>>
>> Huh? Like Rupert, I find this comment very confusing. What specific
>> privacy and legal reasons are there for not providing a per-country
>> breakdown of donations?
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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,