Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread James Salsman
As a general question, Pine, what do you think is the optimal amount
of time that the Foundation should allow a chapter agreement to
persist when, as in this case, allegations of financial impropriety
and use of the trademarks to  enrich chapter officials' side projects
are followed by removal of access to the chapter mailing list and
refusal to agendize an audit and recall?

Do we have a healthier movement if the Foundation signals, by lack of
action, that they will tolerate such conditions  and require the
ordinary membership to do so much extra legwork to organize the muted
membership?

Would requiring the ordinary membership to form an alternative
organization in order to address this issue encourage other chapters'
officials to use the trademarks for their personal benefit, too?


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> A matter of concern is that WMF is far from having an exemplary record of
> good governance and transparency. It's problematic for WMF to be pointing
> fingers at other organizations and telling them to improve their governance.
>
> On the other hand, based on my limited understanding of the facts, it seems
> to me that the situation with WMFR shouldn't be allowed to continue
> indefinitely. Pulling the chapter agreement should be an option, although I
> would prefer that that option be exercised by someone other than the WMF
> staff and/or WMF Board. I don't think that the Affiliations Committee would
> be a good option either, at least not with its present form, since it is an
> advisory committee to the WMF Board and it relies on a charter from the WMF
> Board for its authority, which means that the Affiliations Committee could
> be easily manipulated by the WMF Board and in any case a decision from the
> Affiliations Committee would need the approval of the WMF Board.
>
> I think that most people would prefer that the existing WMFR organization
> be returned to good health, but if that doesn't happen in a timely manner,
> then there are a lot of difficult choices to be made, unfortunately.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:20 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and
>> preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence
>> of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions
>> of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the
>> members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially
>> since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter
>> leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership
>> to communicate with each other.
>>
>> Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the
>> chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation
>> should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently
>> between a few people getting more email than they want and complete
>> dysfunctional takeover.
>>
>> Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of
>> harm to the movement"?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood
>>  wrote:
>> > Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the
>> rights/power/authority to do this?
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of James Salsman
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>> >
>> > Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce
>> a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the
>> September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may
>> not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) 
>> wrote:
>> >> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting
>> >> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
>> >> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to
>> >> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several
>> >> weeks to achieve that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per
>> >> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting.
>> >> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous
>> >> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion
>> >> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as
>> >> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would
>> >> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial
>> audit...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sharing sad news about Bassel

2017-08-03 Thread Gregory Varnum
A complete statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, made by Katherine, has been 
posted on the Wikimedia Blog:  
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/03/bassel-khartabil/ 


We are also asking for people’s assistance with translating this message into 
other languages given the global impact of these events:  
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Wikimedia_Foundation_mourns_the_loss_of_Bassel_Khartabil
 


The plan is to make additional information about the Foundation’s efforts to 
honor Bassel’s contributions and values will be available during Wikimania.

I want to join Katherine and others on this list in offering my personal 
condolences to all impacted by this tragic outcome.

-greg


---
Gregory Varnum
Communications Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation 
gvar...@wikimedia.org

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
> 
> Extremely sad news. May his soul continue to rest in perfect peace.
> 
> My condolence to the family.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Isaac Olatunde.
> 
> On Aug 2, 2017 9:57 AM, "Richard Farmbrough" 
> wrote:
> 
> Very sad news  indeed.  Frustrating that we could not gain more social
> media traction, when there is such nonsense that does.
> 
> On 2 Aug 2017 08:37, "kayode yussuf"  wrote:
> 
>> This is a very sad news.
>> 
>> Bassel will continue to be an hero in our hearts and we will take solace
>> in his activities in the Open movement.
>> 
>> Kayode Yussuf
>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 00:19, David Gerard  wrote:
>>> 
 On 2 August 2017 at 00:00, Katherine Maher 
>> wrote:
 
 at his article [2], and at https://freebassel.org.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is giving an SSL error ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - d.
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> 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
>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Ziko van Dijk
The number of pillars depends on the language version...
And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much
importance
Ziko

John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um 14:42:

> Five pillars are moot.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
> > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned
> and
> > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> >
> > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
> guide
> > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> >
> > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
> > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
> > time.
> >
> > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> > process,
> > > not increase them.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
> without
> > > > local context.
> > > >
> > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
> Even
> > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
> from
> > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > > > communities.
> > > >
> > > > Strainu
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > policies,
> > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> the
> > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> policies.
> > It
> > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > something
> > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > simply
> > > be
> > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > baseline
> > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> > research"
> > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
> about
> > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
> projects
> > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
> point
> > of
> > > > > view"…
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > > policies
> > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > > pages,
> > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
> would
> > > have
> > > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeblad
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Pine W
Hi James,

A matter of concern is that WMF is far from having an exemplary record of
good governance and transparency. It's problematic for WMF to be pointing
fingers at other organizations and telling them to improve their governance.

On the other hand, based on my limited understanding of the facts, it seems
to me that the situation with WMFR shouldn't be allowed to continue
indefinitely. Pulling the chapter agreement should be an option, although I
would prefer that that option be exercised by someone other than the WMF
staff and/or WMF Board. I don't think that the Affiliations Committee would
be a good option either, at least not with its present form, since it is an
advisory committee to the WMF Board and it relies on a charter from the WMF
Board for its authority, which means that the Affiliations Committee could
be easily manipulated by the WMF Board and in any case a decision from the
Affiliations Committee would need the approval of the WMF Board.

I think that most people would prefer that the existing WMFR organization
be returned to good health, but if that doesn't happen in a timely manner,
then there are a lot of difficult choices to be made, unfortunately.

Pine


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:20 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and
> preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence
> of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions
> of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the
> members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially
> since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter
> leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership
> to communicate with each other.
>
> Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the
> chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation
> should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently
> between a few people getting more email than they want and complete
> dysfunctional takeover.
>
> Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of
> harm to the movement"?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> > Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the
> rights/power/authority to do this?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
> >
> > Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce
> a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the
> September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may
> not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) 
> wrote:
> >> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
> >>
> >>
> >> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting
> >> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
> >> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to
> >> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several
> >> weeks to achieve that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per
> >> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting.
> >> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous
> >> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion
> >> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as
> >> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would
> >> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial
> audit...
> >>
> >>
> >> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions
> >> may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least
> >> 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one
> >> month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
> >>
> >>
> >> But to make things easier for us...
> >> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
> >> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
> >> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have
> >> voted for the new agenda...
> >> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
> >> 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased
> >> number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to
> >> request additions to the agenda.
> >> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
> >> means we can NOT reach out 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread James Salsman
Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and
preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence
of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions
of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the
members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially
since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter
leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership
to communicate with each other.

Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the
chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation
should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently
between a few people getting more email than they want and complete
dysfunctional takeover.

Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of
harm to the movement"?

Sincerely,
Jim


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
> Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the 
> rights/power/authority to do this?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of James Salsman
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>
> Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a 
> new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the 
> September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may 
> not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:
>> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>>
>>
>> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting
>> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
>> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to
>> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several
>> weeks to achieve that.
>>
>>
>> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per
>> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting.
>> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous
>> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion
>> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as
>> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would
>> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial 
>> audit...
>>
>>
>> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions
>> may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least
>> 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one
>> month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
>>
>>
>> But to make things easier for us...
>> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
>> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
>> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have
>> voted for the new agenda...
>> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
>> 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased
>> number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to
>> request additions to the agenda.
>> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
>> means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact
>> them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the
>> closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for
>> registration. So the most active members actually joined that public
>> list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who
>> did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
>> How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on
>> an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them
>> about it.
>>
>> How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
>> shameful behavior.
>>
>> So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
>>
>>
>> If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks...
>> please vote.
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
>> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>>
>>
>> Please, do realy our call in your network.
>>
>> If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia
>> France, please tell them about the vote. It is here :
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
>> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>>
>> Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
>> https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
>>
>> Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Deutschland's Progress Report has been published

2017-08-03 Thread Pine W
I am far behind on email (as you can tell) but I want to say thanks to
Nicole and our other colleagues at WMDE for this report. There are several
elements of the report that interest me, including
https://tools.wmflabs.org/commons-video-clicks/.

I look forward to reading the report in more detail.

Pine


On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I would like to draw your attention to our freshly published APG
> Progress Report. It covers the first six months of 2017 and highlights
> include:
>
> * Learnings from our online campaigns to attract and retain new
> editors for Wikipedia
> * Experimenting with a new Wikipedia Hotline
> * Developing features to increase data quality on Wikidata
> * What you can do when Wiktionary data is integrated into Wikidata
> * Making the German-speaking Community Technical Wishlist Survey more
> accessible
> * How we are bursting the Brussels bubble
> * Why WMDE dabbles in Open Science
>
> As always, we wanted to share some of our most important learnings
> with the movement. So, check it out:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
> 2016-2017_round_1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Progress_report_form
>
> Happy reading,
> Nicole
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Movement Strategy Track Lead: Organized Groups
>
> 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.
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Deutschland's Progress Report has been published

2017-08-03 Thread Nicole Ebber
Dear all,

I would like to draw your attention to our freshly published APG
Progress Report. It covers the first six months of 2017 and highlights
include:

* Learnings from our online campaigns to attract and retain new
editors for Wikipedia
* Experimenting with a new Wikipedia Hotline
* Developing features to increase data quality on Wikidata
* What you can do when Wiktionary data is integrated into Wikidata
* Making the German-speaking Community Technical Wishlist Survey more accessible
* How we are bursting the Brussels bubble
* Why WMDE dabbles in Open Science

As always, we wanted to share some of our most important learnings
with the movement. So, check it out:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017_round_1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Progress_report_form

Happy reading,
Nicole

-- 
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Movement Strategy Track Lead: Organized Groups

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.

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: 20-22 April in Berlin #wmcon

2017-08-03 Thread Nicole Ebber
Dear Wikimedia friends,

We are happy to announce the date of the next Wikimedia Conference:
From 20 to 22 April 2018, we will welcome representatives from
Wikimedia Affiliates and partners, from the Wikimedia Foundation as
well as its committees in Berlin. We will closely coordinate with the
WMF’s teams for all things logistics, program and funding, and are
thankful for their support.

Taking the clear feedback from participants and our experiences from
several years of organizing this event into account, we have also
agreed to host WMCON in Berlin for an unlimited time. You will be able
to read more about our lessons learned in September/October, when we
publish our report about hosting WMCON from 2015-2017.

As in the previous years, we will create a space for conversations
around the future of our movement, with a special focus on the
affiliates’ responsibilities and needs as well as collaboration within
our movement and with our partners. Phase 2 of the movement strategy
process will also be in full swing at that time, so that WMCON can
again provide one essential platform for strategic conversations among
affiliates and the WMF.

The main conference will run from Friday to Sunday, and will again
accommodate pre- and post-conference sessions and workshops. In the
coming months, we will provide you with all necessary information on
eligibility criteria for attendance, registration, funding and program
design. Stay tuned for updates!

If you have questions or ideas to share, feel free to reach out via
the usual channels or talk to Abraham, Cornelius or me next week at
Wikimania.

Nicole


-- 
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Movement Strategy Track Lead: Organized Groups

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New beta feature: Syntax Highlighting!

2017-08-03 Thread Danny Horn
Hi Andy,

Thanks for sending your thoughts, that's the kind of feedback that we need.
People can either write responses in this thread, or post it on the
project's talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Wikitext_editor_syntax_highlighting

We'll respond as comments come in, making bug fixes and then making a plan
for changes as we see what people have to say. Thanks again.

Danny



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:07 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 3 August 2017 at 23:21, Danny Horn  wrote:
>
> > WMF's Community Tech team team is happy to announce that Wikitext Editor
> > Syntax Highlighting has been released as a beta feature today on all LTR
> > Wikimedia projects!
>
> I'm all in favour of having syntax highlighting - I teach people to
> edit wikicode, and I find it helps them to learn it more quickly.
>
> I've been using the syntax highlighting gadget  en.Wikipedia:
>
>https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot/Syntax_highlighter
>
> for some time now. I've just disabled, it, and instead enabled the new
> beta feature.
>
> My first impression is that it is lacking in contrast - it's far
> harder, now, to differentiate the various types of content. Indeed the
> colour pairs used (e.g. #8800CC vs. #B3) fail WCAG web
> accessibility guidelines for colour contrast.
>
> I realise that choice of styling colours is a "bikeshed" matter, but
> contrast ratio is a quantifiable and objective accessibility issue.
>
> Also, because the script does not load immediately, the larger
> headings cause the page to "dance" as the script kicks in.
>
> What plans are there to either receive and act on feedback such as
> this, or to provide greater user-customisation options?
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New beta feature: Syntax Highlighting!

2017-08-03 Thread Natacha Rault
Great news, thank you! Nattes à chat

> Le 4 août 2017 à 00:21, Danny Horn  a écrit :
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> WMF's Community Tech team team is happy to announce that Wikitext Editor
> Syntax Highlighting has been released as a beta feature today on all LTR
> Wikimedia projects!
> 
> Syntax Highlighting was the #6 request in this year's Community Wishlist
> Survey [1]  -- a way to help editors parse the wikitext in the edit window
> by using color, bolding, italics and size to make it easier to see which
> parts are article text, and which are links, templates, tags and headings.
> 
> It's easy to separate the link target from the actual link text, section
> headings are bigger, and adding bold and italics actually changes the way
> it looks in the edit window. Plus -- thanks to the amazing performance
> optimization done by volunteer developer Pastakhov -- it loads a lot faster
> than previous versions of syntax highlighting.
> 
> Unfortunately, the feature isn't available in RTL languages yet; we're
> working on some bugs, and we'll release it as soon as we can. We're also
> hoping to improve the Syntax Highlighting performance for people who also
> use the "New wikitext mode" Beta feature.
> 
> You can find Syntax Highlighting under the Beta features tab in
> Preferences. I hope you all love it and find it useful! If you've got
> feedback, you can click on the Discussion link in Beta features, or leave
> comments and questions on the Community Tech project talk page. [2] Thanks!
> 
> 
> Danny Horn
> Senior Product Manager
> WMF Community Tech
> 
> [1] Community Wishlist Survey:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
> 
> [2] Project talk page:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Wikitext_editor_syntax_highlighting
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New beta feature: Syntax Highlighting!

2017-08-03 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 3 August 2017 at 23:21, Danny Horn  wrote:

> WMF's Community Tech team team is happy to announce that Wikitext Editor
> Syntax Highlighting has been released as a beta feature today on all LTR
> Wikimedia projects!

I'm all in favour of having syntax highlighting - I teach people to
edit wikicode, and I find it helps them to learn it more quickly.

I've been using the syntax highlighting gadget  en.Wikipedia:

   https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot/Syntax_highlighter

for some time now. I've just disabled, it, and instead enabled the new
beta feature.

My first impression is that it is lacking in contrast - it's far
harder, now, to differentiate the various types of content. Indeed the
colour pairs used (e.g. #8800CC vs. #B3) fail WCAG web
accessibility guidelines for colour contrast.

I realise that choice of styling colours is a "bikeshed" matter, but
contrast ratio is a quantifiable and objective accessibility issue.

Also, because the script does not load immediately, the larger
headings cause the page to "dance" as the script kicks in.

What plans are there to either receive and act on feedback such as
this, or to provide greater user-customisation options?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New beta feature: Syntax Highlighting!

2017-08-03 Thread James Heilman
Great to see this work going forwards. Can we make the colors more like
those used in WikEd? We have build instructions based on the coloring of
text created by WikEd to help guide our translation folks.

James

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Danny Horn  wrote:

> Oh, a PS: We're going to post an announcement on some village pumps, but
> please feel free to share this with your community. Thanks!
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Danny Horn  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > WMF's Community Tech team team is happy to announce that Wikitext Editor
> > Syntax Highlighting has been released as a beta feature today on all LTR
> > Wikimedia projects!
> >
> > Syntax Highlighting was the #6 request in this year's Community Wishlist
> > Survey [1]  -- a way to help editors parse the wikitext in the edit
> window
> > by using color, bolding, italics and size to make it easier to see which
> > parts are article text, and which are links, templates, tags and
> headings.
> >
> > It's easy to separate the link target from the actual link text, section
> > headings are bigger, and adding bold and italics actually changes the way
> > it looks in the edit window. Plus -- thanks to the amazing performance
> > optimization done by volunteer developer Pastakhov -- it loads a lot
> faster
> > than previous versions of syntax highlighting.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the feature isn't available in RTL languages yet; we're
> > working on some bugs, and we'll release it as soon as we can. We're also
> > hoping to improve the Syntax Highlighting performance for people who also
> > use the "New wikitext mode" Beta feature.
> >
> > You can find Syntax Highlighting under the Beta features tab in
> > Preferences. I hope you all love it and find it useful! If you've got
> > feedback, you can click on the Discussion link in Beta features, or leave
> > comments and questions on the Community Tech project talk page. [2]
> Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Danny Horn
> > Senior Product Manager
> > WMF Community Tech
> >
> > [1] Community Wishlist Survey: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
> >
> > [2] Project talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Wikitext_editor_syntax_highlighting
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New beta feature: Syntax Highlighting!

2017-08-03 Thread Danny Horn
Oh, a PS: We're going to post an announcement on some village pumps, but
please feel free to share this with your community. Thanks!

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Danny Horn  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> WMF's Community Tech team team is happy to announce that Wikitext Editor
> Syntax Highlighting has been released as a beta feature today on all LTR
> Wikimedia projects!
>
> Syntax Highlighting was the #6 request in this year's Community Wishlist
> Survey [1]  -- a way to help editors parse the wikitext in the edit window
> by using color, bolding, italics and size to make it easier to see which
> parts are article text, and which are links, templates, tags and headings.
>
> It's easy to separate the link target from the actual link text, section
> headings are bigger, and adding bold and italics actually changes the way
> it looks in the edit window. Plus -- thanks to the amazing performance
> optimization done by volunteer developer Pastakhov -- it loads a lot faster
> than previous versions of syntax highlighting.
>
> Unfortunately, the feature isn't available in RTL languages yet; we're
> working on some bugs, and we'll release it as soon as we can. We're also
> hoping to improve the Syntax Highlighting performance for people who also
> use the "New wikitext mode" Beta feature.
>
> You can find Syntax Highlighting under the Beta features tab in
> Preferences. I hope you all love it and find it useful! If you've got
> feedback, you can click on the Discussion link in Beta features, or leave
> comments and questions on the Community Tech project talk page. [2] Thanks!
>
>
> Danny Horn
> Senior Product Manager
> WMF Community Tech
>
> [1] Community Wishlist Survey: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
>
> [2] Project talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Wikitext_editor_syntax_highlighting
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trace of Soul (WLM+WLE) in Republic of Srpska

2017-08-03 Thread Pine W
I like the name.

Pine


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:06 PM, WМ RepublikaSrpska <
wmrepublikasrp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
>
> I am pleased, in front of the Wikimedia Community of the Republic of
> Srpska, to inform you that our community received its first annual APG
> grant this year and we are very excited about it! :) We have already
> started with the initial activities - the Trace of Soul 2017 project. It is
> a photo competition revolving around natural and stationary cultural
> heritage of the Republic of Srpska. The competition is organized for the
> third time in the Republic of Srpska and we hope that it will be
> successfully implemented as in the previous years. In addition to the
> photo-competitions, we will have a number of accompanying activities -
> photo-tours and editing workshops in various cities of the Republic of
> Srpska. We hope that this year we will be able to improve the project both
> in terms of quality and quantity.
>
> For more information, see Trace of Soul
> , and
> the project
> website .
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Bojana
>
> *Замислите свет у коме свака особа на планети има слободан приступ
> целокупном људском знању. То је оно на чему ми радимо.*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

2017-08-03 Thread Pine W
I wonder if WMF would be willing to let a non-WMF affiliate put up
fundraising (which I consider to be another form of advertising, and
perhaps some survey respondents did too) banners to get funds for COIN and
related backlogs. Perhaps if the fundraising was done by a separate
organization, then these efforts could be funded while minimizing the risks
to WMF's legal protections.

Pine


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> > And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
>
> I would sure like to know this.
>
> I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
> hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
> without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
> Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
> funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
> issue separately as in WikiEd?
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > I find the slide
> >  2017_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting.pdf=22>
> > about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising" interesting
> > as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
> >
> > We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and
> appears
> > to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which are
> > mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> > involved with adding SEO links.
> >
> > We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> >  interest/Noticeboard>,
> > which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more than a
> > hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject Spam.
> >
> > Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is, such as
> > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what percentage
> of
> > socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all  —
> >>
> >> Wikimania is coming, but before we get to Montreal, we are publishing
> many
> >> more insights, reports, guides, and research from our work during cycle
> 3.
> >> There's lots of good stuff and interesting insights (did you know Spain
> is
> >> consistently one of the countries with the highest awareness about our
> >> projects and community?), and I encourage you to take a look. Here are a
> >> few new updates:
> >>
> >> *New voices synthesis report.*[1] Are you looking to better understand
> >> New Voices projects? Start with this overview report — it summarizes our
> >> work across many teams: insights from research, a summary of 58 expert
> >> interviews, expert convenings hosted by the Foundation and affiliates,
> >> design research findings, briefings on major trends that will impact the
> >> community like misinformation and emerging platforms, further reading,
> and
> >> (of course!) references.
> >>
> >> *July Wikimedia Foundation metrics meeting.*[2] During our July 27
> >> meeting, we reviewed new research on brand insights about why people do
> >> (and do not) read Wikipedia, research that focuses on high-awareness
> >> countries as part of New Voices initiatives.
> >>
> >> *Strategic direction committee update.*[3] We are working to consider
> >> what we have heard from the community and learned from research to
> identify
> >> what we want to achieve as a movement by 2030. We will share our first
> >> draft of the strategic direction with all of you in advance of
> Wikimania.
> >> We’re looking forward to your thoughts on the talk page!
> >>
> >> *Wikimania movement strategy and events.*[4] Speaking of Wikimania, the
> >> Foundation is preparing 6 sessions related to the strategy process in
> the
> >> official program. We will also offer you a physical location for
> engaging
> >> with the strategic direction: the Movement Strategy Space, open from
> >> Thursday through Sunday. The Space will host different working sessions,
> >> discussions, and the chance to re-energize for the coming weeks and
> months
> >> (we have some special things in store!). The conference organizers are
> also
> >> preparing a remote attendee plan with live video and content for the
> >> conference overall, so you will be able to participate if you’re not
> able
> >> to come to Montreal. Please note that online registration ended July 31;
> >> after that you can register on-site starting August 8.[5]
> >>
> >> ভালো থাকবেন। (Bengali translation: “Stay well”)
> >>
> >> Katherine
> >>
> >> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on
> Meta-Wiki.[6]
> >>
> >> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Peter Southwood
Citation needed,
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Erling Blad
Sent: Thursday, 03 August 2017 8:45 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

I believe policies on subprojects of Wikipedia are common by necessity, while 
the policies of Wikipedia and Wiktionary are common by coincidence.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 
wrote:

> Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by 
> coincidence.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Erling Blad
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
>
> Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies 
> > should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the 
> > start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, 
> > individuality from there.  If it gets put on meta it will become a 
> > you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all 
> > community input into the process.  Also for many people they dont 
> > follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed 
> > and the new policy will become via a forced  cascade to the 
> > communities.  I for one could never support any process being 
> > created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
> >
> > On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content 
> > > policy
> > from
> > > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could 
> > > have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> > >  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> > > > 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable 
> > > > > points
> > > (NPOV,
> > > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside 
> > > > > those, individual projects generally have latitude to run 
> > > > > things as their community needs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is 
> > > > explicitly different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from 
> > > > wiki to wiki, as
> > > fair
> > > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > > >
> > > > Things are not so simple.
> > > > ​​
> > > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ~Keegan
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > >
> > > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this 
> > > > email
> > > address
> > > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >  > > > ib
> > > > e>
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >  > > e>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
I believe policies on subprojects of Wikipedia are common by necessity,
while the policies of Wikipedia and Wiktionary are common by coincidence.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by
> coincidence.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of John Erling Blad
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
>
> Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should
> > be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a
> > project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality
> > from there.  If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this
> > and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the
> > process.  Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also
> > happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become
> > via a forced  cascade to the communities.  I for one could never
> > support any process being created as a means to take away from the
> > community its own solutions
> >
> > On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content
> > > policy
> > from
> > > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could
> > > have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell
> > >  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable
> > > > > points
> > > (NPOV,
> > > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside
> > > > > those, individual projects generally have latitude to run things
> > > > > as their community needs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is
> > > > explicitly different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from
> > > > wiki to wiki, as
> > > fair
> > > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > > >
> > > > Things are not so simple.
> > > > ​​
> > > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ~Keegan
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > >
> > > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > > address
> > > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >  > > > e>
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
Five pillars are moot.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
> create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned and
> blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
>
> By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best guide
> to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
>
> We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
> meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
> time.
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> process,
> > not increase them.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> >
> > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
> > > local context.
> > >
> > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
> > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
> > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > > communities.
> > >
> > > Strainu
> > >
> > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > policies,
> > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
> It
> > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > >
> > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > something
> > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> simply
> > be
> > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> should
> > > be
> > > > localized if necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > >
> > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > baseline
> > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > Perhaps
> > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > >
> > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> research"
> > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
> of
> > > > view"…
> > > >
> > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > policies
> > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > pages,
> > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> > have
> > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > >
> > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Jeblad
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Yann Forget
2017-08-03 13:47 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis :

> > To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
> > forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
> > the last General Assembly.
> >
> > This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
> > and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
> > biggest and most long-drawn-out.
>
> Of course, it's quite a lot: that's why a special meeting is scheduled to
> discuss of all that and the biggest part of the discussion will be driven
> by the people who are not happy.
> But still, 70-75% of the members are happy with the organisation and never

ask them anything, nobody tries to listen to them. We should try to include
> everyone, even the shy ones, even those who just work and don't consider
> themselves as potentiol bosses... not only the few who knows who to talk
> to, where to write, to have their personal wills fulfilled
>
> No, that's plain wrong.
70-75% of members are silent, or not interested. So far, Rémi, you are the
only one outside the board who supports the board.

The people complaining are ALL the active volunteers of the French
Wikimedia community.

Please get things right.

Regards,

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Peter Southwood
Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the 
rights/power/authority to do this?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
James Salsman
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new 
policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September 
General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise 
be inclined to agendas, please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:
> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>
>
> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting 
> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to 
> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several 
> weeks to achieve that.
>
>
> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per 
> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. 
> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous 
> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion 
> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as 
> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would 
> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial 
> audit...
>
>
> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions 
> may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 
> 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one 
> month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
>
>
> But to make things easier for us...
> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus 
> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships 
> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have 
> voted for the new agenda...
> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 
> 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased 
> number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to 
> request additions to the agenda.
> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which 
> means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact 
> them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the 
> closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for 
> registration. So the most active members actually joined that public 
> list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who 
> did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
> How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on 
> an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them 
> about it.
>
> How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond 
> shameful behavior.
>
> So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
>
>
> If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... 
> please vote.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
>
> Please, do realy our call in your network.
>
> If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia 
> France, please tell them about the vote. It is here :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
> Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
> https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
>
> Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong 
> they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please 
> inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new 
> agenda : "
>
> The current board members
> * Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
> * the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
> * the vice President : 
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
> * The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
> * and the former president who is now regular member:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
>>
>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>>
>> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things 
>> the way they really are.
>>
>> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new 
>> AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>>
>> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of 
>> inexact/false statements that are on the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Peter Southwood
Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by coincidence.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Erling Blad
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should 
> be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a 
> project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality 
> from there.  If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this 
> and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the 
> process.  Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also 
> happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become 
> via a forced  cascade to the communities.  I for one could never 
> support any process being created as a means to take away from the 
> community its own solutions
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content 
> > policy
> from
> > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could 
> > have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> >  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable 
> > > > points
> > (NPOV,
> > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside 
> > > > those, individual projects generally have latitude to run things 
> > > > as their community needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is 
> > > explicitly different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from 
> > > wiki to wiki, as
> > fair
> > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > >
> > > Things are not so simple.
> > > ​​
> > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > >
> > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > address
> > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: 
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >  > > e>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Alessandro Marchetti
About Louise, IMHO if you care about someone who has recently died, you should 
dedicate a whole separated email to the topic.

Of course, if I had specifically any feeling that a mail will be at the center 
of a critical discussion, I would not put any reference to a dead person right 
there. I'd send two mail, in this case one about the situation of WMFr and one 
in memoriam of Louise. You ask different member of the board to do that, so 
every confusion is avoided.

That's what I though when I read the mail from E. Hue: "why here?"
For the future, let's try not to mix "business emails" with obituaries. Just my 
personal advice.

Alessandro


  

Il Giovedì 3 Agosto 2017 14:45, Natacha Rault  ha scritto:
 

 Dear All, 
Remi's email is symptomatic of the kind of communication we have been 
confronted with when asking questions (I repeat : questions, because all the so 
called opponants did in the first place was to question). 
No wonder people are unhappy: they are invited to do exactly the contrary to 
what we are used to in  the Wikimedia projects: debate and search consensus 
though confrontation of different ideas. 
As for the "silent majority" representing 70%, they are just silent. Maybe they 
dont understand, dont care, dont have the information or support  the current 
board: we cannot assume without an open conversation what their ideas are.
This is why it is important to discuss AND vote before the GA assembly to make 
sure all interested members.

Furthermore: last year if I remember correctly, there were 130 people 
participating to the GA.
Now 74 members asking for a GA is about half of them. Not just a few members..
Words and numbers have precise meaning, that can just not be avoided.

With wikilove 
Natacha /Nattes à chat 




> Le 3 août 2017 à 14:16, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> 
> Correct Ting
> 
> 
> At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it.
> I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
> 
> 
> Flo
> 
>> Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> Hello dear all,
>> at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
>> denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
>> this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different 
>> time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of 
>> harm to the movement.
>> Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond 
>> repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user 
>> group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
>> - The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
>> missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter 
>> status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the 
>> chapter status
>> - The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in 
>> course.
>> The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / 
>> group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create 
>> pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.
>> I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
>> certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
>> force is always easier and quicker.
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>> Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:
>>> Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
>>> announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
>>> contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
>>> particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
>>> please?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  
 wrote:
 The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
 
 
 After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
 finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
 we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
 a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
 achieve that.
 
 
 Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
 the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
 agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the 
 current
 board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
 somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
 vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such 
 as
 request of a financial audit...
 
 
 According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may 
 be
 made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Gnangarra
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.

By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.

We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
time.

On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and process,
> not increase them.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:
>
> > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
> > local context.
> >
> > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
> > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
> > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > communities.
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > policies,
> > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > >
> > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > something
> > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply
> be
> > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
> > be
> > > localized if necessary.
> > >
> > > Checking Meta I find
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > >
> > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > >
> > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> baseline
> > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> Perhaps
> > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> > > view"…
> > >
> > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > policies
> > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> pages,
> > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> have
> > > more "ownership" of them.
> > >
> > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > >
> > > Jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Natacha Rault
Dear All, 
Remi's email is symptomatic of the kind of communication we have been 
confronted with when asking questions (I repeat : questions, because all the so 
called opponants did in the first place was to question). 
No wonder people are unhappy: they are invited to do exactly the contrary to 
what we are used to in  the Wikimedia projects: debate and search consensus 
though confrontation of different ideas. 
As for the "silent majority" representing 70%, they are just silent. Maybe they 
dont understand, dont care, dont have the information or support  the current 
board: we cannot assume without an open conversation what their ideas are.
This is why it is important to discuss AND vote before the GA assembly to make 
sure all interested members.

Furthermore: last year if I remember correctly, there were 130 people 
participating to the GA.
Now 74 members asking for a GA is about half of them. Not just a few members..
Words and numbers have precise meaning, that can just not be avoided.

With wikilove 
Natacha /Nattes à chat 




> Le 3 août 2017 à 14:16, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> 
> Correct Ting
> 
> 
> At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it.
> I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
> 
> 
> Flo
> 
>> Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> Hello dear all,
>> at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
>> denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
>> this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different 
>> time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of 
>> harm to the movement.
>> Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond 
>> repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user 
>> group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
>> - The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
>> missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter 
>> status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the 
>> chapter status
>> - The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in 
>> course.
>> The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / 
>> group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create 
>> pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.
>> I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
>> certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
>> force is always easier and quicker.
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>> Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:
>>> Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
>>> announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
>>> contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
>>> particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
>>> please?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  
 wrote:
 The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
 
 
 After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
 finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
 we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
 a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
 achieve that.
 
 
 Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
 the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
 agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the 
 current
 board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
 somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
 vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such 
 as
 request of a financial audit...
 
 
 According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may 
 be
 made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
 membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the
 actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
 
 
 But to make things easier for us...
 * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
 decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
 rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted
 for the new agenda...
 * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
 members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request 
 additions
 to the agenda.
 * the main mailing list of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Devouard (gmail)

Correct Ting


At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it.
I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.


Flo

Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :

Hello dear all,

at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a 
different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door 
to do a lot of harm to the movement.


Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really 
beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, 
join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:


- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of 
chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply 
for the chapter status


- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back 
in course.


The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization 
/ group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also 
create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.


I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
force is always easier and quicker.


Greetings

Ting


Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  
wrote:

The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE


After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting 
data,

finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to 
request

a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
achieve that.


Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per 
bylawys,
the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on 
the
agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the 
current
board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. 
Which
somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur 
BEFORE the
vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, 
such as

request of a financial audit...


According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions 
may be
made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% 
of the
membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before 
the

actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...


But to make things easier for us...
* some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have 
voted

for the new agenda...
* in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 
300

members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request 
additions

to the agenda.
* the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which 
means we

can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I
managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the 
closure of
the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the 
most
active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. 
But

all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public
list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an
agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them 
about

it.

How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
shameful behavior.

So, friends, I would like to ask you help.


If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... 
please

vote.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour 




Please, do realy our call in your network.

If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France,
please tell them about the vote. It is here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour 



Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704

Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong 
they


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Gabriel Thullen
I will bi going to the September 9 GA, and for the moment I still am a
member of Wikimedia France.
I am posting here in spite of the risk, because I want to set a few things
straight.

25% of the French chapter asked for this GA knowing full well that the
annual GA was scheduled a month later in October. A few of the most vocal
opponents have been expelled from the chapter, some of them for failure to
pay their dues before the deadline. Other active French wikipedians have
had their admission refused. In spite of all that, a quarter of the members
asked to hold this extra GA. I my experience, this is a serious crisis and
the current French chapter leadership cannot ignore that fact.

We cannot immediately qualify any dissenting as "aggressive behavior" or
"harassment". It has become quite impossible for current members to express
their views for fear of being expelled from the chapter, or being accused
of harassing the chapter president or senior staff - I do make a
distinction between the ED and the staff who are having a hard time and who
work under the risk of being fired if they refuse to obey orders (like what
has just happened to Jules). We all are very appreciative and thankful for
the work done by the "employees", we are quite critical of the ED.

Florence is quite right about being concerned about the very sudden
increase in membership, and I fully suspect that these new members will be
at the GA in September. Before being involved in Wikimedia, I was quite
involved in labor unions (and still am), so I have seen this type of
maneuvering before. It makes me quite sad to see this happen to a Wikimedia
Chapter, but that is probably because I am much too much of an idealist.

I will quote Rémi Mathis:
"This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
be done within a chapter.

I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
employees."

For one, I think that Rémi should steer clear of this type of discussion,
because he has a very clear COI. Sorry Rémi, you are not an "ordinary
member".
Now what really disturbs me is that Rémi tries to discredit the members who
are asking for a GA by implying that they have an agenda, that they are
very few, and that they "refuse to acknowledge reality". As a labor union
leader, I have had exactly the same accusations leveled at me. And I hope
that Rémi knows what he is talking about when he speaks of harassment,
because I have never experienced a case where one of the labor unions I
worked with had to pay a company executive compensation for "harassment".

Best regards
Gabe

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Rémi Mathis  wrote:

> This is typically the kind agressive behaviour we don't need right now.
> Everybody in the chapter knows that Marie-Alice Mathis and Rémi Mathis are
> wife and husband, it has always been clearly stated and we always refused
> to be at the board at the same time to avoid conflicts of interest.
>
> Now what? Do you think I can't have opinions of my own because I'm not a
> member of the board, or she can't have because she's a manipulated woman?
> We are *two individuals* and we do have *two brains*. This kind of
> allegations are not acceptable and the smugness of "Nuff said" really
> hurtful!
>
> I am an ordinary member... but I think I have a certain experience of
> what's going on
> 1/ as a long-time member of the board (2009-2014) and chair (2011-2014),
> who hired most of the employees, managed them, organized a lot of what made
> Wikimedia France one of the biggest and most sucessful chapters... and a
> member still really involved in the life of the community
> 2/ as someone, yes, who sees her wife spending hours every night, trying to
> explain things to people who don't want to hear or understand. Like, you
> know, when you ask a question about a fact, I answer to you with a
> *checkable fact*. And you answer "I don't agree" (not even "it's not true",
> because everybody could check that, but "I don't agree")...
>
> I can't even understand why you post things like at all, but even less on
> an international list where people don't know what happens and, for most of
> them, can't read French.
> This really makes me sad and frustrated
>
> Rémi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 12:47, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:
>
> > And for the sake of proper understanding... Rémi Mathis is the husband of
> > the current vice-chair of Wikimedia France.
> >
> > Nuff said.
> >
> >
> > Florence
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 03/08/2017 à 12:17, Rémi Mathis a écrit :
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of
> message
> >> really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Rémi Mathis
> To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
> forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
> the last General Assembly.
>
> This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
> and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
> biggest and most long-drawn-out.
>


Of course, it's quite a lot: that's why a special meeting is scheduled to
discuss of all that and the biggest part of the discussion will be driven
by the people who are not happy.
But still, 70-75% of the members are happy with the organisation and never
ask them anything, nobody tries to listen to them. We should try to include
everyone, even the shy ones, even those who just work and don't consider
themselves as potentiol bosses... not only the few who knows who to talk
to, where to write, to have their personal wills fulfilled

And you are totally right, this is not the first crisis; this is actually
the point.
Every two years, some people complain and ask question about the general
strategy: should the organisation grow or not, what should be the relations
between employees and members, what are the main goals, etc. Then everybody
work together to build a strategic plan, to take decisions ; the plan is
implemented... and two years after that those who weren't happy at that
time, some new members, etc. want to begin from scratch one more time. It's
very hard to have a long-term strategy and developpment if there is no
trust in what members have done before. And it's above all a real problem
for the employees who can never be sure their job won't be at risk a few
months after.



>
> > And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
> > board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and
> cannot be done within a chapter.
>
> To my mind the board's "explanations" are part of the problem. Reading
> the statements from WMFR about the FDC process, or their emails to
> members or their response to the timeline - it's all about how WMFR
> has never been wrong about anything. All the criticism is wrong (and
> probably a conspiracy). WMFR's board has been doing the only thing
> they could possibly have done. All of this is repeated again and
> again.
>
> That is a dysfunctional response to the situation. A significant part
> of the French Wikimedia community has lost confidence in WMFR. The
> Board should be working to restore that confidence, and the more it
> denies the problem is real, the worse the result will be.
>


Well, the problem is that... it's not really clear what the problem is...
They always talk about "what happens", "the situation"... but it's very
hard to understand what specific problem there is. I mean, to have another
answer than "a gouvernance problem" and another ideas than "we should fire
the director, another employee and ask the board to resign".
The people organizing the next general meeting want an audit... but there
have been two in a few months, and we are waiting for the conclusion of the
Foundation (some people came in Paris a few weeks ago): what new can an
audit find?
They want to create a commission against conflits of interest... but it
already exist (within the board, it can be widened, I totally agree) and
some of their leaders precisely left because they wouldn't sign the conflit
of interest statement!
They want to reinstate not only the people whose admission have been
refused but all the members who have been excluded... but no member have
ever been excluded!

It's really hard to speak and be understood (once more, Anthere asks a
question about something she doesn't know, about a fact; I answer to her
with the very fact, and she says "I don't agree". What can you answer to
that?)
I think everybody counted on the Foundation mission to facilitate the
dialogue, we really hope it will happen.

And anyway, I think most of the board cannot deal with the harasment
anymore and will resign. This is just a terrible waste of energy, good will
and work. Back to 2008... with a lot of frustration from those who gave a
lot of free time and competence to the development of the chapter

R














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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello, i wrote something about a comparison of conent policies and will
have a presentation at wikicon, but at the momemt i am not at my home
computer.
Kind regards ziko

John Erling Blad  schrieb am Mi. 2. Aug. 2017 um 18:19:

> I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> That view is probably not very popular.
>
> Jeblad
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap
> > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> pages
> > will need to have been translated as well.
> >
> > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> 24
> > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please
> > > see:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > There are three types of issues:
> > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing
> > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > b) Enforce them
> > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > remind
> > > me over email or phone call.
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > policies,
> > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
> It
> > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > >
> > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > something
> > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> simply
> > be
> > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> should
> > > be
> > > > localized if necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > >
> > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > baseline
> > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > Perhaps
> > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > >
> > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> research"
> > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
> of
> > > > view"…
> > > >
> > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > policies
> > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > pages,
> > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> > have
> > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > >
> > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Jeblad
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Ting Chen

Hello dear all,

at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a 
different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door 
to do a lot of harm to the movement.


Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really 
beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, 
join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:


- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of 
chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply 
for the chapter status


- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back 
in course.


The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization 
/ group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also 
create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.


I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
force is always easier and quicker.


Greetings

Ting


Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:

The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE


After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
achieve that.


Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current
board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as
request of a financial audit...


According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be
made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the
actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...


But to make things easier for us...
* some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted
for the new agenda...
* in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions
to the agenda.
* the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I
managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of
the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most
active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But
all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public
list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an
agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about
it.

How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
shameful behavior.

So, friends, I would like to ask you help.


If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please
vote.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour


Please, do realy our call in your network.

If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France,
please tell them about the vote. It is here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour

Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704

Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they
behave by not giving a chance to democracy
Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote
opened for the new agenda : "

The current board members
* Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
* 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Rémi Mathis
This is typically the kind agressive behaviour we don't need right now.
Everybody in the chapter knows that Marie-Alice Mathis and Rémi Mathis are
wife and husband, it has always been clearly stated and we always refused
to be at the board at the same time to avoid conflicts of interest.

Now what? Do you think I can't have opinions of my own because I'm not a
member of the board, or she can't have because she's a manipulated woman?
We are *two individuals* and we do have *two brains*. This kind of
allegations are not acceptable and the smugness of "Nuff said" really
hurtful!

I am an ordinary member... but I think I have a certain experience of
what's going on
1/ as a long-time member of the board (2009-2014) and chair (2011-2014),
who hired most of the employees, managed them, organized a lot of what made
Wikimedia France one of the biggest and most sucessful chapters... and a
member still really involved in the life of the community
2/ as someone, yes, who sees her wife spending hours every night, trying to
explain things to people who don't want to hear or understand. Like, you
know, when you ask a question about a fact, I answer to you with a
*checkable fact*. And you answer "I don't agree" (not even "it's not true",
because everybody could check that, but "I don't agree")...

I can't even understand why you post things like at all, but even less on
an international list where people don't know what happens and, for most of
them, can't read French.
This really makes me sad and frustrated

Rémi












On 3 August 2017 at 12:47, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:

> And for the sake of proper understanding... Rémi Mathis is the husband of
> the current vice-chair of Wikimedia France.
>
> Nuff said.
>
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 03/08/2017 à 12:17, Rémi Mathis a écrit :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of message
>> really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
>> international mailing lists.
>> We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that the
>> chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good at
>> it.
>>
>> I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
>> "uncollaborative way".
>> Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
>> it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply not
>> true.
>>
>> A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
>> employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked for
>> a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
>> Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
>> began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
>> (there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
>> accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
>> members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to spread
>> rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
>> boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.
>>
>> This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
>> This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
>> bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
>> board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
>> be done within a chapter.
>>
>> I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
>> Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
>> employees.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rémi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Pierre-Selim 
>>> Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>>
>>>
>>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>>>
>>> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
>>> way
>>> they really are.
>>>
>>> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM
>>> by
>>> 25%
>>> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>>>
>>> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
>>> inexact/false
>>> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
>>> on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
>>> This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
>>>
>>> In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the
>>> community/member
>>> for
>>> the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
>>> agenda
>>> ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
>>>
>>> I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
>>> community,
>>> but I wish we did not had to go this way.
>>>
>>> I am truly ashamed of this board,
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitderep
>>> onse.html
>>> [2] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread James Salsman
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:
> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>
>
> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
> finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
> a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
> achieve that.
>
>
> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
> the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
> agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current
> board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
> somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
> vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as
> request of a financial audit...
>
>
> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be
> made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
> membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the
> actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
>
>
> But to make things easier for us...
> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted
> for the new agenda...
> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
> members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
> members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions
> to the agenda.
> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
> can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I
> managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of
> the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most
> active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But
> all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public
> list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
> How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an
> agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about
> it.
>
> How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
> shameful behavior.
>
> So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
>
>
> If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please
> vote.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
>
> Please, do realy our call in your network.
>
> If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France,
> please tell them about the vote. It is here :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
> Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
> https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
>
> Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they
> behave by not giving a chance to democracy
> Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote
> opened for the new agenda : "
>
> The current board members
> * Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
> * the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
> * the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
> * The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
> * and the former president who is now regular member:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
>>
>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>>
>> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
>> way
>> they really are.
>>
>> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
>> 25%
>> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>>
>> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
>> inexact/false
>> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
>> on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
>> This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
>>
>> In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the
>> community/member
>> for
>> the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
>> agenda
>> ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
>>
>> I hope the board will have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and process,
not increase them.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:

> The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
> local context.
>
> Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
> if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
> the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> communities.
>
> Strainu
>
> 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> policies,
> > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> >
> > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> something
> > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
> > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
> be
> > localized if necessary.
> >
> > Checking Meta I find
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> >
> > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> >
> > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> >
> > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> > view"…
> >
> > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> policies
> > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
> > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
> > more "ownership" of them.
> >
> > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > Wiktionary, etc).
> >
> > Jeblad
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in
> the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then
> let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there.  If it
> gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the
> wikilawyers removing all community input into the process.  Also for many
> people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will
> get changed and the new policy will become via a forced  cascade to the
> communities.  I for one could never support any process being created as a
> means to take away from the community its own solutions
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy
> from
> > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have
> > common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> > (NPOV,
> > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > > community needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> > fair
> > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > >
> > > Things are not so simple.
> > > ​​
> > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > >
> > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > address
> > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Chris Keating
> A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
> employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members

To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
the last General Assembly.

This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
biggest and most long-drawn-out.

> And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
> board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot be 
> done within a chapter.

To my mind the board's "explanations" are part of the problem. Reading
the statements from WMFR about the FDC process, or their emails to
members or their response to the timeline - it's all about how WMFR
has never been wrong about anything. All the criticism is wrong (and
probably a conspiracy). WMFR's board has been doing the only thing
they could possibly have done. All of this is repeated again and
again.

That is a dysfunctional response to the situation. A significant part
of the French Wikimedia community has lost confidence in WMFR. The
Board should be working to restore that confidence, and the more it
denies the problem is real, the worse the result will be.

Regards,

Chris

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Devouard (gmail)
And for the sake of proper understanding... Rémi Mathis is the husband 
of the current vice-chair of Wikimedia France.


Nuff said.


Florence


Le 03/08/2017 à 12:17, Rémi Mathis a écrit :

Dear all,

As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of message
really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
international mailing lists.
We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that the
chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good at
it.

I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
"uncollaborative way".
Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply not
true.

A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked for
a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
(there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to spread
rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.

This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
be done within a chapter.

I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
employees.

Best,

Rémi











From: Pierre-Selim 
Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


The passing of Louise is really sad :(

On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
way
they really are.

"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
25%
of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.

The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
inexact/false
statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!

In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
for
the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
agenda
... during the summer ... and Wikimania.

I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
community,
but I wish we did not had to go this way.

I am truly ashamed of this board,

[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/
088008.html
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour

2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter :


Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:


probably me...

Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a

écrit

:


Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by

someone

I can not recognize from the username.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <

kma...@wikimedia.org



wrote:


Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,

We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau.

While I

did

not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for

the

Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and

the

relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have

gotten

along well.

Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are

grateful

for

the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have

benefited

greatly from her continued advocacy.

I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.

However,

I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who

have

come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion

and

bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or

challenges.

Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize

her

passing.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in

our

thoughts and that the community has our condolences.

Katherine

PS. I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Devouard (gmail)

The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE


After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting 
data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to 
request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several 
weeks to achieve that.



Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per 
bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics 
not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm 
on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the 
General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the 
discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like 
some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...



According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions 
may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 
25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one 
month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...



But to make things easier for us...
* some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus 
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships 
rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have 
voted for the new agenda...
* in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number 
of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request 
additions to the agenda.
* the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which 
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact 
them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the 
closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for 
registration. So the most active members actually joined that public 
list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did 
not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an 
agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them 
about it.


How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond 
shameful behavior.


So, friends, I would like to ask you help.


If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... 
please vote. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour



Please, do realy our call in your network.

If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, 
please tell them about the vote. It is here : 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour


Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704

Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong 
they behave by not giving a chance to democracy
Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the 
vote opened for the new agenda : "


The current board members
* Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
* the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
* the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
* The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
* and the former president who is now regular member: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk



Thanks

Florence


Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :

The passing of Louise is really sad :(

On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way
they really are.

"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
25%
of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.

The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
inexact/false
statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!

In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
for
the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
agenda
... during the summer ... and Wikimania.

I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
community,
but I wish we did not had to go this way.

I am truly ashamed of this board,

[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour

2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter :


Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.

Cheers

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Rémi Mathis
Dear all,

As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of message
really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
international mailing lists.
We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that the
chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good at
it.

I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
"uncollaborative way".
Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply not
true.

A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked for
a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
(there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to spread
rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.

This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
be done within a chapter.

I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
employees.

Best,

Rémi









>
> From: Pierre-Selim 
> Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>
>
> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>
> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
> way
> they really are.
>
> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
> 25%
> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>
> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
> inexact/false
> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
> on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
> This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
>
> In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
> for
> the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
> agenda
> ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
>
> I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
> community,
> but I wish we did not had to go this way.
>
> I am truly ashamed of this board,
>
> [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
> [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/
> 088008.html
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
> Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
>
> 2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter :
>
> > Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
> >
> > > probably me...
> > > > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a
> écrit
> > :
> > > >
> > > > Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
> > > someone
> > > > I can not recognize from the username.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
> > > >>
> > > >> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau.
> While I
> > > did
> > > >> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
> > the
> > > >> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and
> the
> > > >> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
> > > gotten
> > > >> along well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
> > grateful
> > > for
> > > >> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
> > > benefited
> > > >> greatly from her continued advocacy.
> > > >>
> > > >> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
> > > >> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
> > > However,
> > > >> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
> > have
> > > >> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
> > and
> > > >> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
> > > challenges.
> > > >> Louise was a part 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sharing sad news about Bassel

2017-08-03 Thread Isaac Olatunde
Extremely sad news. May his soul continue to rest in perfect peace.

My condolence to the family.

Regards,

Isaac Olatunde.

On Aug 2, 2017 9:57 AM, "Richard Farmbrough" 
wrote:

Very sad news  indeed.  Frustrating that we could not gain more social
media traction, when there is such nonsense that does.

On 2 Aug 2017 08:37, "kayode yussuf"  wrote:

> This is a very sad news.
>
> Bassel will continue to be an hero in our hearts and we will take solace
> in his activities in the Open movement.
>
> Kayode Yussuf
>
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 00:19, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> >> On 2 August 2017 at 00:00, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> at his article [2], and at https://freebassel.org.
> >
> >
> > This is giving an SSL error ...
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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
> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

2017-08-03 Thread James Salsman
> what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?

I would sure like to know this.

I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
issue separately as in WikiEd?


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> I find the slide
> 
> about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising" interesting
> as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
>
> We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and appears
> to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which are
> mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> involved with adding SEO links.
>
> We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> ,
> which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more than a
> hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject Spam.
>
> Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is, such as
> what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what percentage of
> socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all  —
>>
>> Wikimania is coming, but before we get to Montreal, we are publishing many
>> more insights, reports, guides, and research from our work during cycle 3.
>> There's lots of good stuff and interesting insights (did you know Spain is
>> consistently one of the countries with the highest awareness about our
>> projects and community?), and I encourage you to take a look. Here are a
>> few new updates:
>>
>> *New voices synthesis report.*[1] Are you looking to better understand
>> New Voices projects? Start with this overview report — it summarizes our
>> work across many teams: insights from research, a summary of 58 expert
>> interviews, expert convenings hosted by the Foundation and affiliates,
>> design research findings, briefings on major trends that will impact the
>> community like misinformation and emerging platforms, further reading, and
>> (of course!) references.
>>
>> *July Wikimedia Foundation metrics meeting.*[2] During our July 27
>> meeting, we reviewed new research on brand insights about why people do
>> (and do not) read Wikipedia, research that focuses on high-awareness
>> countries as part of New Voices initiatives.
>>
>> *Strategic direction committee update.*[3] We are working to consider
>> what we have heard from the community and learned from research to identify
>> what we want to achieve as a movement by 2030. We will share our first
>> draft of the strategic direction with all of you in advance of Wikimania.
>> We’re looking forward to your thoughts on the talk page!
>>
>> *Wikimania movement strategy and events.*[4] Speaking of Wikimania, the
>> Foundation is preparing 6 sessions related to the strategy process in the
>> official program. We will also offer you a physical location for engaging
>> with the strategic direction: the Movement Strategy Space, open from
>> Thursday through Sunday. The Space will host different working sessions,
>> discussions, and the chance to re-energize for the coming weeks and months
>> (we have some special things in store!). The conference organizers are also
>> preparing a remote attendee plan with live video and content for the
>> conference overall, so you will be able to participate if you’re not able
>> to come to Montreal. Please note that online registration ended July 31;
>> after that you can register on-site starting August 8.[5]
>>
>> ভালো থাকবেন। (Bengali translation: “Stay well”)
>>
>> Katherine
>>
>> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6]
>>
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
>> movement/2017/Sources/New_Voices_Synthesis_report_(July_2017)
>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
>> metrics_and_activities_meetings
>> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
>> movement/2017/People/Drafting_Group
>> [4] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
>> [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
>> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
>> movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_
>> movement_strategy_process
>>
>> --
>> Katherine Maher
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 149 New Montgomery Street
>> San Francisco, CA 94105
>>
>> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
>> +1 (415) 712 4873 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Strainu
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
local context.

Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
communities.

Strainu

2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies,
> but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
>
> Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something
> that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
> able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be
> localized if necessary.
>
> Checking Meta I find
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
>
> I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
>
> Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
>
> Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> view"…
>
> Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies
> pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
> so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
> more "ownership" of them.
>
> The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> Wiktionary, etc).
>
> Jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Gnangarra
I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in
the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then
let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there.  If it
gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the
wikilawyers removing all community input into the process.  Also for many
people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will
get changed and the new policy will become via a forced  cascade to the
communities.  I for one could never support any process being created as a
means to take away from the community its own solutions

On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy from
> Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have
> common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> (NPOV,
> > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > community needs.
> >
> >
> > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> fair
> > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> >
> > Things are not so simple.
> > ​​
> > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> >
> > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> address
> > is in a personal capacity.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
Without common core policies they can not claim that the projects stick
within their boundaries. Is a project without a clear policy on "no
original research", "verifiability" and "neutral point of view" Wikipedia?
Is it enough to just say it is "Wikipedia" to be "Wikipedia"? I believe
there should be clearer boundaries on what it means to be "Wikipedia", or
"Wikiversity" or "Wiktionary", or some other "Wiki*".

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
> way?  Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> > (NPOV,
> > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > > community needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> > > fair
> > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > >
> >
> > And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
> > research (within certain guidelines).
> >
> > —Sam
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy from
Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have
common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
> > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > community needs.
>
>
> ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as fair
> use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
>
> Things are not so simple.
> ​​
> ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> Neutral_point_of_view​
> ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread John Erling Blad
What happens now is that policies from enwiki is adopted "as is", but a lot
of the rules enwiki does not make sense at all.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland  wrote:

> I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English,
> will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental
> principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is
> independant,
>
> JP
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> > That view is probably not very popular.
> >
> > Jeblad
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big
> leap
> > > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> > pages
> > > will need to have been translated as well.
> > >
> > > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> > 24
> > > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment,
> please
> > > > see:
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > > There are three types of issues:
> > > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but
> localizing
> > > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > > b) Enforce them
> > > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tito Dutta
> > > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > > remind
> > > > me over email or phone call.
> > > >
> > > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > policies,
> > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> the
> > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> policies.
> > It
> > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > something
> > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > simply
> > > be
> > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > baseline
> > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> > research"
> > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
> about
> > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
> projects
> > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
> point
> > of
> > > > > view"…
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > > policies
> > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > > pages,
> > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
> would
> > > have
> > > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeblad
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Help requested for finding certain subjects in your local Wikipedia

2017-08-03 Thread Eduardo Testart
Romain,

For CL
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Cultural_Gabriela_Mistral
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_de_Arte_Contempor%C3%A1neo_de_Santiago


Regards,

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In the Dutch part of Belgium there exists a performing arts database, and
> they are donating parts of it to Wikidata. Over the past century they have
> collected the theatre venues and festivals where a Flemish theatre group
> had its première. For many locations I already found an article in
> Wikipedia or an item in Wikidata, for some not yet. For those of which no
> article nor item could be found, I need your help!
>
> Please help me identify which venues and festivals from your country listed
> on this page have in your Wikipedia already an article?
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Romaine/Kunstenpunt_venues
> You can edit the page!
>
> The countries of what I have at least one or more locations are:
>
> Argentina
> Australia
> Austria
> Belarus
> Brazil
> Canada
> Chile
> China
> Congo-Kinshasa
> Croatia
> Cyprus
> Czech Republic
> Denmark
> Egypt
> Estonia
> Finland
> France
> Germany
> Greece
> Hong Kong
> Iceland
> Iran
> Ireland
> Israel
> Italy
> Japan
> Latvia
> Liechtenstein
> Lithuania
> Luxembourg
> Macedonia
> Morocco
> Netherlands
> Norway
> Philippines
> Poland
> Portugal
> Romania
> Russia
> Slovakia
> Slovenia
> South Africa
> South Korea
> Spain
> Switzerland
> Taiwan
> Turkey
> UK
> USA
> Vietnam
>
> Thanks!
> Romaine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
way?  Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?

"Rogol"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> (NPOV,
> > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > community needs.
> >
> >
> > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> > fair
> > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> >
>
> And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
> research (within certain guidelines).
>
> —Sam
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-03 Thread Sam Wilson
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
> > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > community needs.
> 
> 
> ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> fair
> use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> 

And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
research (within certain guidelines).

—Sam

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