Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

2017-08-25 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Jimbo

I understand you to say that the WMF could have afforded to spend $5M on
direct support of volunteer contributors had it chosen to, without
prejudice to the decision  to place $5M into the Endowment.  I seem to
recall that you stated on Wikipedia that "I support expansion of the
scholarship program (and thus spending more money on Wikimania overall)"
 Given that you believe that the money was in fact available for such a
purpose, it seems that we are united in our regret that it was not spent
for that purpose -- a full fee scholarship for all attendees would have
consumed something like 5% of the sum which you say could have been made
available,

Perhaps you could persuade the Board of Trustees to consider your proposal
in time for the Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town to use in their financial
planning.  It would also be splendid if the Board were to consider other
ways of supporting volunteer content contributors, such as purchasing
books, journal and library subscriptions and so forth.

Redmond

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

> On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> > I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of
> > endowment,  The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort --
> one
> > of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the
> benefit
> > of the projects today, and accumulating capital for the benefit of the
> > projects tomorrow.  I am asking the Board to say why they decided to
> strike
> > that balance where they did -- given the obvious need for that support
> > right now -- and whether it is appropriate for large donors to apparently
> > influence that decision.
>
> I can't speak for anyone other than myself.
>
> Given the level of reserves that the WMF has today, your entire approach
> here (the assumption that $5 million going into the endowment therefore
> reduces spending) is invalid.  There is enough money to do both.
>
> The question is therefore not "Why did you save the money for the future
> rather than spend it today?"
>
> The question is: why don't we increase spending today?
>
> We have always followed, and should continue to follow, a thoughtful
> process of strategic planning and budgeting.  A windfall of cash from a
> successful fundraising should never give rise to immediate and poorly
> planned spending.
>
> If you believe, as I do, that we have a great opportunity to responsibly
> spend more money at the Foundation on suporting the projects in the next
> few years - then please support the strategic planning process - that's
> the right forum to have a voice in what happens next.
>
> Random demands for explanations on the mailing list - particulary when
> so fundamentally mistaken in basic assumptions - aren't really helpful.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> ___
> 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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Kingsindian WP
Hello Shani,

I lurk here, but don't really post. I am a regular poster at Wikipediocracy
where I saw a discussion of this thread. I'll make one specific comment and
one general comment.

When I read the RfC and I got to proposal #4, I thought that it might just
as well have been written specifically with Rogol in mind. And I am pretty
sure I was not the only person who thought so. Seeing this proposal, Rogol
would definitely have felt that a bulls-eye was painted on their back,
which might have contributed to the flare-up. My thoughts on the flare-up
itself are available at Wikipediocracy for those who want to look; I don't
wish to derail the thread here.

Now, I come to the broader issues. Obviously, this is a moderated list, and
the moderators have discretion. I would like to make two points. They are
not original or Earth-shaking, just relevant.

1. The Wikimedia "community", such as it exists, is very diverse: not only
in makeup, but also in viewpoints.
2. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have a lot of influence on the
world.

Therefore, one should err on the side of allowing more open discussion.
Nobody here is forced to read or respond to Rogol's posts. I am sure people
here know how to configure their email clients to filter messages.

Kingsindian
(User: Kingsindian on en.wp)

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Shani Evenstein 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> > length less than a year ago?
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > Periodic_survey_prototype
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >  wrote:
> > > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> > the
> > > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> > > why they will not do so.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> > contacting
> > > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> that
> > my
> > >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> > >>
> > >> And I stand by them.
> > >>
> > >> Seddon
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Joseph
> > >> >
> > >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
> too.  I
> > >> said
> > >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> To
> > >> the
> > >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> ask
> > >> how
> > >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> > you
> > >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> quibble
> > >> over
> > >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which
> I
> > >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> > >> about
> > >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > >> >
> > >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> > the
> > >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> posting,
> > >> and
> > >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > >> Alternatively,
> > >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> > >> >
> > >> > Reginald
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] News on Wkipedia

2017-08-25 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Then perhaps the blog posts were over-enthusiastic.  There is a current
discussion on this topic at the English-language Wikipedia, but not at the
link Andrew gave: it is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary

Rod

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As far as I can tell, the Foundation does not have "policy on news across
> its various projects".
>
> So the answer to your original question:
>
> > > Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
> > > > source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions
> > with
> > > > the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities?  Will the Foundation allocate
> > any
> > > > extra resources to this effort?
> >
>
> would seem to be this: No, there is no particular decision to promote
> Wikipedia as a source of news.  There have, however, been a number of blog
> posts and communications celebrating Wikipedia's success at providing
> relatively up-to-date and accurate information on current events.  No
> discussion with either Wikipedia or Wikinews communities took place, or
> needed to, as this was just another aspect of Wikipedia being showcased on
> the Wikimedia blog.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Foundation has not allocated any extra resources
> to promoting Wikipedia as a news source.  You are mistaking a couple of
> blog posts to signify Some Grand Policy Change, but it is not so.
>
> Asaf
> ___
> 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] HEADS UP: Wikimedia Developer Summit 2018: Technology for the Movement Strategy

2017-08-25 Thread Victoria Coleman
Hi everyone,

I wanted to give you all a heads up about the upcoming Dev Summit. This year 
the Summit will be held in San Francisco on January 22nd and 23rd, 2018. We are 
still finalizing the details and will be sending out the call for participation 
soon. But meantime, we wanted to share a preview of the game plan with you so 
that you can hold the dates and begin to think about ways of participating. 

This has been a year of strategy making for the Foundation and our communities. 
As the way forward becomes clearer, we,  the technology community entrusted 
with delivering the products and infrastructure for supporting the community 
vision, need to reflect on what the movement strategy means for us and how to 
best prepare, plan and execute that support. This year, the Developer Summit is 
dedicated to this reflection. We invite technologists, managers and users to 
study, reflect and propose ways to support the strategic vision we are 
committed to. We would like you to capture your thoughts in a short position 
statement and join the conversation. 

Specifically, we invite you to think about ways of imagining, creating, 
planning, building and maintaining the technology foundation needed to enable 
the key tenets of our strategy:

The infrastructure for open: We will empower individuals and institutions to 
participate and share, through open standards, platforms, and datasets. We will 
host, broker, share, and exchange free knowledge across institutions and 
communities. We will be a leading advocate and partner for increasing the 
creation, curation, and dissemination in free and open knowledge.

An encyclopedia, and so much more: We will adapt to our changing world to offer 
knowledge in the most effective ways, across digital formats, devices, and 
experiences. We will adapt our communities and technology to the needs of the 
people we serve. As we include other forms of free knowledge, we will aim for 
these projects to be as successful as Wikipedia.

Reliable, relevant information: We will continue our commitment to providing 
useful information that it is reliable, accurate, and relevant to users. We 
will integrate technologies that support accuracy at scale and enable greater 
insight into how knowledge is produced and shared. We will embrace the effort 
of increasing the quality, depth, breadth, and diversity of free knowledge, in 
all forms.

This direction poses key questions for our technical community. Here are some 
example topics we would welcome ideas and discussion in:

How do we maintain and grow the technical community and ready it for the 
mission ahead?
What should the role of open source be in the next 15 years of the movement? 
How does it help or hinder? How do we promote it or adapt it? How do we 
leverage it?
What are the foundational building blocks for the language technologies we will 
need in order to be present everywhere where there are people?
Scaling. What tools do we need as the movement and the community grow? 
What are the implications of the strategic direction for our infrastructure? Do 
we have any key gaps in this infrastructure? How ready is our infrastructure 
for what is to come?
How should MediaWiki evolve to support the mission? 
What technologies are necessary for embracing mobility?
We operate in parts of the world where access to free knowledge is blocked, 
hindered or plain dangerous. What tools do we need to support these at-risk  
communities?
How and with whom should we partner to create the technologies needed to 
support the mission?
How can we leverage machine learning and analytics to support the mission and 
our communities?
What are emerging trends in technology that will impact our mission in the next 
5-10-15 years?

These conversations will be invaluable input to the next phase of the strategy 
process as we shift from exploration to definition to execution. We are 
energized, excited and hopeful for a great set of thoughtful, impactful 
conversations.

As we embark on this journey we want to have an open but focused dialog so we 
are aiming for a smaller participant cohort than previous Dev Summits. We want 
to encourage everyone to consider these questions and put forward ideas in the 
form of a short position paper or abstract. We are selecting a Program 
Committee that consists of respected technologists and best represents the 
diversity of our communities.  The Program Committee will screen and evaluate 
the position papers in a blind review process and will select those that best 
fit the strategic intent of this Summit. The authors will then be invited to 
participate. We hope to attract  those  within our community who are passionate 
about the future, hold a point of view and have concrete ideas for how we best 
use technology to support the objectives of the movement through 2030. We will 
bring the ideas and learnings from the Summit to the broader technology 
community during the upcoming hackathons and related events in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

2017-08-25 Thread WereSpielChequers
I haven't taken part in discussions about the endowment for several
years, not least because the argument appears to have been won and an
endowment is being established. But if things have changed so much
that people are arguing that there is a choice between long-term
stability and short-term content contribution, then perhaps it is time
that I restated two of the arguments for an endowment.

For some of us who volunteer our time for these projects long term
stability or at least survival of content is itself a motivation. I
have put tens of hours of my time into sites that have sputtered and
then died. I have put far far more time into Wikimedia sites, and part
of my motivation is that my small contributions are part of something
much bigger that will probably help people for a long long time to
come.

There is also an important incentive re short term contributions from
digital curators in the GLAM sector. One of the positives that we
offer our GLAM partners is the increased probability that their
digitisation will persist and still be available for the foreseeable
future if they upload a copy on commons. An endowment increases the
credibility of that offer. What I'd like to see coming from the WMF re
the endowment is communication as to when the endowment has reached
the point where the WMF can commit to hosting Wikimedia Commons for
the foreseeable future. Ideally both as a blogpost for external
audiences and a contribution to the GLAM newsletter for internal
audiences.

Regards

Jonathan / WereSpielChequers


> On 23 Aug 2017, at 07:44, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits (Alessandro Marchetti)
>   2. t (Rogol Domedonfors)
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:25:23 +0100
> From: Rogol Domedonfors 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment
> Message-ID:
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Richard Farmbrough
While I would  (and have) strongly opposed both threats and actual
contacting of employerst of volunteers, I think the situation here is
somewhat different.

Firstly WMF employees are not subject to community sanction insofar as
their paid roles go.  Secondly it is perfectlying normal to have an
escalation path in case of difficulty in anthe public faxing role.

I am aware that the US has a culture far more prone to fire people first
and ask questions later, than the UK, but I would hope that the WMF does
not work like that.

On 25 Aug 2017 19:23, "Andrew Lih"  wrote:

> I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a
> very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an
> important part of our communications ecosystem.
>
> Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life"
> consequences should be dealt with in the most severe manner. If we do
> not meatball:DefendEachOther, and deliver the basic safety needs of the
> list membership, how can we in good conscience keep this list running and
> encourage participation?
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Robert Fernandez  >
> wrote:
>
> > I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> > disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> > uncrossable line here.
> >
> > Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> > responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> > It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> > the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> > claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is
> no
> > reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> > message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see
> this
> > as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> > slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might
> not
> > be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide
> that I
> > am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
> >
> > Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> > government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> > grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> > that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> > their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> > administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> > myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> > in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that
> my
> > chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on
> this
> > list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> > >
> > > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision
> has
> > > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> > reasonable,
> > > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that
> it
> > is
> > > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those
> of
> > > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> > >
> > > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on
> specific
> > > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> > on
> > > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> > objectively
> > > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> > posting
> > > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> > fix
> > > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run
> its
> > > course.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> > >> length less than a year ago?
> > >>
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> > >> odic_survey_prototype
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> > >>  wrote:
> > >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> > from
> > >> the
> > >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> > regarding
> > >> > why they will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-25 Thread Peter Southwood
Agreed. Your message is a great improvement.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Andreas Kolbe
Sent: Friday, 25 August 2017 9:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

Sam,


On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a 
> success if it'd be made commercial is crazy.



You say that now, but originally, Wikipedia was registered as a dotcom, with 
the idea that the site would host advertising one day. However, it soon became 
clear that the presence of advertising would be profoundly demotivating for 
Wikipedia’s unpaid volunteers.



> "Has it crossed my mind how
> much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the 
> same." reads to me as just a hypothetical "if it were as it is today
> *and* had ads", rather than any serious suggestion that that would 
> ever have been the case.



It wasn't hypothetical at all 15 years ago. The entire Spanish Wikipedia 
community left in 2002, starting a rival project, the Enciclopedia Libre[1], 
when Bomis[2], Jimmy Wales’ company at the time, was short of money and there 
was talk of introducing ads in Wikipedia.[3]

It took the Spanish Wikipedia years to catch up with (and eventually
overtake) the Enciclopedia Libre. *Thereafter*, advertising was never seriously 
discussed again, and Wikipedia was promoted as a purely altruistic endeavour.


I reckon it makes sense to the non-editor people
> it's aimed at.
>


It endorses and perpetuates, in the Wikimedia Foundation's voice, the myth that 
Jimmy Wales is some sort of Jesus who gave up the chance to make billions out 
of the kindness of his heart (rather than because volunteers told him they 
wouldn't work for free to make him rich). It aggrandises Wales while painting 
volunteers out of history.

As you say, "it makes sense" to the ignorant it is aimed at. (That's actually a 
useful definition of "alternative facts".)


Anyway, about my grammar nickpicking? ;-)
>


Let's look at the current wording again:

"We will get straight to the point: Today we ask you to help Wikipedia. To 
maintain our independence, we will never run ads. We depend on donations 
averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone 
reading this gave $3, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come.
The price of a coffee is all we need. When I made Wikipedia a non-profit, 
people warned me I’d regret it. Over a decade later, it’s the only top ten site 
run by a non-profit and a community of volunteers. Has it crossed my mind how 
much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the same. We 
wouldn’t be able to trust it. Most people ignore my messages.
But I hope you’ll think about how useful it is to have unlimited access to 
reliable, neutral information. Please help keep Wikipedia online and growing. 
Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder"

The shortcomings around this particular passage can be fixed. For example:

"We will get straight to the point: Today we ask you to help Wikipedia. To 
maintain our independence, we will never run ads. We depend on donations 
averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone 
reading this gave $3, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come.
The price of a coffee is all we need. Wikipedia is the only top-ten site run by 
a non-profit and a community of volunteers. It wouldn’t be the same if it were 
a commercial project. Most people ignore our fundraising messages. But we hope 
you’ll think about how useful it is to have unlimited access to reliable, 
neutral information. Please help keep Wikipedia online and growing. Thank you. 
— Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

That has matching pronouns as well.

Andreas

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en_Español
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis
[3] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-spanish-fork



>
> —Sam
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 05:06 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > Sam,
> > I can't get back to the banner for some reason, so I risk misquoting it.
> > Please take this into account.
> > What I find offensive is the implication that the foundation would 
> > even have Wikipedia if they were doing it commercially. I and a 
> > significant number of other contributors would not have helped make 
> > it what it is today if it had been a commercial site. To support 
> > this opinion, there do not appear to be any commercial projects of 
> > this type even vaguely approaching the success of Wikipedia. The 
> > banner implies that there would be a roughly equivalent project 
> > available to sell. This I find offensive as it denigrates the 
> > voluntary contributions done by all the unpaid contributors.
> > I see this as misrepresentation and disrespect to the crowd that is 
> > the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Sam,


On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a
> success if it'd be made commercial is crazy.



You say that now, but originally, Wikipedia was registered as a dotcom,
with the idea that the site would host advertising one day. However, it
soon became clear that the presence of advertising would be profoundly
demotivating for Wikipedia’s unpaid volunteers.



> "Has it crossed my mind how
> much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the
> same." reads to me as just a hypothetical "if it were as it is today
> *and* had ads", rather than any serious suggestion that that would ever
> have been the case.



It wasn't hypothetical at all 15 years ago. The entire Spanish Wikipedia
community left in 2002, starting a rival project, the Enciclopedia
Libre[1], when Bomis[2], Jimmy Wales’ company at the time, was short of
money and there was talk of introducing ads in Wikipedia.[3]

It took the Spanish Wikipedia years to catch up with (and eventually
overtake) the Enciclopedia Libre. *Thereafter*, advertising was never
seriously discussed again, and Wikipedia was promoted as a purely
altruistic endeavour.


I reckon it makes sense to the non-editor people
> it's aimed at.
>


It endorses and perpetuates, in the Wikimedia Foundation's voice, the myth
that Jimmy Wales is some sort of Jesus who gave up the chance to make
billions out of the kindness of his heart (rather than because volunteers
told him they wouldn't work for free to make him rich). It aggrandises
Wales while painting volunteers out of history.

As you say, "it makes sense" to the ignorant it is aimed at. (That's
actually a useful definition of "alternative facts".)


Anyway, about my grammar nickpicking? ;-)
>


Let's look at the current wording again:

"We will get straight to the point: Today we ask you to help Wikipedia. To
maintain our independence, we will never run ads. We depend on donations
averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone
reading this gave $3, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come.
The price of a coffee is all we need. When I made Wikipedia a non-profit,
people warned me I’d regret it. Over a decade later, it’s the only top ten
site run by a non-profit and a community of volunteers. Has it crossed my
mind how much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be
the same. We wouldn’t be able to trust it. Most people ignore my messages.
But I hope you’ll think about how useful it is to have unlimited access to
reliable, neutral information. Please help keep Wikipedia online and
growing. Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder"

The shortcomings around this particular passage can be fixed. For example:

"We will get straight to the point: Today we ask you to help Wikipedia. To
maintain our independence, we will never run ads. We depend on donations
averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone
reading this gave $3, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come.
The price of a coffee is all we need. Wikipedia is the only top-ten site
run by a non-profit and a community of volunteers. It wouldn’t be the same
if it were a commercial project. Most people ignore our fundraising
messages. But we hope you’ll think about how useful it is to have unlimited
access to reliable, neutral information. Please help keep Wikipedia online
and growing. Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

That has matching pronouns as well.

Andreas

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en_Español
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis
[3] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-spanish-fork



>
> —Sam
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 05:06 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > Sam,
> > I can't get back to the banner for some reason, so I risk misquoting it.
> > Please take this into account.
> > What I find offensive is the implication that the foundation would even
> > have Wikipedia if they were doing it commercially. I and a significant
> > number of other contributors would not have helped make it what it is
> > today if it had been a commercial site. To support this opinion, there do
> > not appear to be any commercial projects of this type even vaguely
> > approaching the success of Wikipedia. The banner implies that there would
> > be a roughly equivalent project available to sell. This I find offensive
> > as it denigrates the voluntary contributions done by all the unpaid
> > contributors.
> > I see this as misrepresentation and disrespect to the crowd that is the
> > source of the product, therefore offensive.
> > It is possible that I am alone in this opinion, but I suggest that a
> > survey of the people who actually created and maintain the content of
> > Wikipedia would show that I am not.
> > At this point, I suggest that WMF do just that, run a survey to find out
> > who builds the encyclopaedia, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Andrew Lih
I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a
very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an
important part of our communications ecosystem.

Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life"
consequences should be dealt with in the most severe manner. If we do
not meatball:DefendEachOther, and deliver the basic safety needs of the
list membership, how can we in good conscience keep this list running and
encourage participation?

-Andrew


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> uncrossable line here.
>
> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>
> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> >
> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> reasonable,
> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
> is
> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> >
> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> on
> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> objectively
> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> posting
> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> fix
> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> > course.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> >> length less than a year ago?
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> >> odic_survey_prototype
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >>  wrote:
> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> from
> >> the
> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> >> > why they will not do so.
> >> >
> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> >> contacting
> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> >> that my
> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I stand by them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> >> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Joseph
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> >> I
> >> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Shani Evenstein
Dear all,

I should have mentioned that we are working on a formal response regarding
the request to ban subscribers from the list.This is an issue that has been
raised during this discussion and we are carefully considering our thoughts
on the matter, as we did for the 4 points that we already requested
comments on. We are close to reaching a consensus and will hopefully be
able to release it soon, but we are in different time zones, so please bear
with us. Our response will sum up our view regarding the points raised in
the list re banning, as well as suggest a proper procedure.

We thank you all for your patience, and again, urge you to take a step
back, not focus on individual cases and respond constructively to the 4
points that were raised in John's original mail.

Shani.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> uncrossable line here.
>
> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>
> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> >
> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> reasonable,
> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
> is
> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> >
> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> on
> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> objectively
> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> posting
> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> fix
> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> > course.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> >> length less than a year ago?
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> >> odic_survey_prototype
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >>  wrote:
> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> from
> >> the
> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> >> > why they will not do so.
> >> >
> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> >> contacting
> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> >> that my
> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I stand by 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-25 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

Just a general remark.

It is actually possible to create a huge website with a lot of content,
even if you are commercial. Wikia (or "Fandom powered by Wikia) is an
example, Baidu Baike another one. Maybe its not exactly the same (sort of)
people who contribute. But I find it highly speculative that a for-profit
organization cannot make a wiki encyclopedia a success, by principle.

Having that said, I personally am very happy that Wikipedia's owner is a
non profit organization. But we should not be too self-secure about our
position - a possible "Wikipedia killer" in future could indeed come from a
commercial organization. That is one important point of the discussion
around the Wikimedia strategy, that we understand that 'we' are not
'invincible'.

Kind regards,
Ziko



Peter Southwood  schrieb am Fr. 25. Aug. 2017
um 17:51:

> We should not sink to "alternative facts" Not even to the American public,
> who seem to be accustomed to them. We should provide a better example.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Sam Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:38 AM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
>
> Peter,
>
> Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a
> success if it'd be made commercial is crazy. "Has it crossed my mind how
> much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the same."
> reads to me as just a hypothetical "if it were as it is today
> *and* had ads", rather than any serious suggestion that that would ever
> have been the case. I reckon it makes sense to the non-editor people it's
> aimed at.
>
> Anyway, about my grammar nickpicking? ;-)
>
> —Sam
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 05:06 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > Sam,
> > I can't get back to the banner for some reason, so I risk misquoting it.
> > Please take this into account.
> > What I find offensive is the implication that the foundation would
> > even have Wikipedia if they were doing it commercially. I and a
> > significant number of other contributors would not have helped make it
> > what it is today if it had been a commercial site. To support this
> > opinion, there do not appear to be any commercial projects of this
> > type even vaguely approaching the success of Wikipedia. The banner
> > implies that there would be a roughly equivalent project available to
> > sell. This I find offensive as it denigrates the voluntary
> > contributions done by all the unpaid contributors.
> > I see this as misrepresentation and disrespect to the crowd that is
> > the source of the product, therefore offensive.
> > It is possible that I am alone in this opinion, but I suggest that a
> > survey of the people who actually created and maintain the content of
> > Wikipedia would show that I am not.
> > At this point, I suggest that WMF do just that, run a survey to find
> > out who builds the encyclopaedia, and how they feel about this. The
> > golden rule of crowdsourcing is don’t alienate the crowd, especially
> > when they are doing your work for free. The one thing we ask in return
> > for our work is a little recognition and respect, and to know that we
> > do a thing intrinsically worth doing. Again, I realise I do not
> > necessarily speak for everyone, but suspect that I speak for many.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Sam Wilson
> > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:26 AM
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
> >
> > "Offensive" seems a bit over the top! Who's it offending? Seems pretty
> > okay to me, personally. :-)
> >
> > Anyway, the only thing I notice with it is that it starts with "We
> > will..." and then says "When I made..." etc. Shouldn't these pronouns
> > agree?
> >
> > —Sam.
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 04:07 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > > The old style is excessively large and in your face. The new style
> > > is almost, but not quite as bad. The content remains offensive and
> > > misleading Cheers, Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Joseph Seddon
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 5:02 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
> > >
> > > Hey Wikimedia-l
> > >
> > > Apologies for the short notice.
> > >
> > > I wanted to give you a heads up on a banner test that will soon be
> > > going live.
> > >
> > > We've been working on a new style of banner that is specifically
> > > designed to have the same native look and feel as the rest of the
> > > site and interface. It's intended to be understated and you'll see
> > > is very different to our currently best 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Anna Stillwell
Interesting and well-considered perspective, Rob. I appreciate your voice
in this discussion.

Beyond this specific incident, which remains important, I agree, would any
of the three policies proposed address this issue? Is there a policy
amendment that you would like to see?

Thank you for your constructive participation and your clarity,
/a

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> uncrossable line here.
>
> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>
> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> >
> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> reasonable,
> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
> is
> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> >
> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> on
> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> objectively
> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> posting
> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> fix
> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> > course.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> >> length less than a year ago?
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> >> odic_survey_prototype
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >>  wrote:
> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> from
> >> the
> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> >> > why they will not do so.
> >> >
> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> >> contacting
> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> >> that my
> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I stand by them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> >> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Joseph
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> >> I
> >> >> said
> >> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> >> To
> >> >> the
> >> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Robert Fernandez
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
uncrossable line here.

Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?

Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
list due to the risk to their livelihoods.


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
>> length less than a year ago?
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
>> odic_survey_prototype
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
>>  wrote:
>> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
>> the
>> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
>> > why they will not do so.
>> >
>> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
>> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
>> contacting
>> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
>> that my
>> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>> >>
>> >> And I stand by them.
>> >>
>> >> Seddon
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>> domedonf...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Joseph
>> >> >
>> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
>> I
>> >> said
>> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
>> To
>> >> the
>> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
>> ask
>> >> how
>> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
>> you
>> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
>> quibble
>> >> over
>> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
>> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
>> >> about
>> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
>> >> >
>> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
>> the
>> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
>> posting,
>> >> and
>> >> > to me for its aggressive, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Anna Stillwell
Thank you, Shani. My new favorite word is "automagically". And thank you
all for working on new ideas for list moderation.
/a

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Shani Evenstein 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> > length less than a year ago?
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > Periodic_survey_prototype
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >  wrote:
> > > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> > the
> > > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> > > why they will not do so.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> > contacting
> > > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> that
> > my
> > >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> > >>
> > >> And I stand by them.
> > >>
> > >> Seddon
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Joseph
> > >> >
> > >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
> too.  I
> > >> said
> > >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> To
> > >> the
> > >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> ask
> > >> how
> > >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> > you
> > >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> quibble
> > >> over
> > >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which
> I
> > >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> > >> about
> > >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > >> >
> > >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> > the
> > >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> posting,
> > >> and
> > >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > >> Alternatively,
> > >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> > >> >
> > >> > Reginald
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> jsed...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your
> > >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
> > pseudonymous
> > >> > > individual.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Seddon
> > >> > > ___
> > >> > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-25 Thread Peter Southwood
We should not sink to "alternative facts" Not even to the American public, who 
seem to be accustomed to them. We should provide a better example.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Sam Wilson
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:38 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

Peter,

Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a success if 
it'd be made commercial is crazy. "Has it crossed my mind how much we could 
have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the same." reads to me as 
just a hypothetical "if it were as it is today
*and* had ads", rather than any serious suggestion that that would ever have 
been the case. I reckon it makes sense to the non-editor people it's aimed at.

Anyway, about my grammar nickpicking? ;-)

—Sam

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 05:06 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> Sam,
> I can't get back to the banner for some reason, so I risk misquoting it.
> Please take this into account.
> What I find offensive is the implication that the foundation would 
> even have Wikipedia if they were doing it commercially. I and a 
> significant number of other contributors would not have helped make it 
> what it is today if it had been a commercial site. To support this 
> opinion, there do not appear to be any commercial projects of this 
> type even vaguely approaching the success of Wikipedia. The banner 
> implies that there would be a roughly equivalent project available to 
> sell. This I find offensive as it denigrates the voluntary 
> contributions done by all the unpaid contributors.
> I see this as misrepresentation and disrespect to the crowd that is 
> the source of the product, therefore offensive.
> It is possible that I am alone in this opinion, but I suggest that a 
> survey of the people who actually created and maintain the content of 
> Wikipedia would show that I am not.
> At this point, I suggest that WMF do just that, run a survey to find 
> out who builds the encyclopaedia, and how they feel about this. The 
> golden rule of crowdsourcing is don’t alienate the crowd, especially 
> when they are doing your work for free. The one thing we ask in return 
> for our work is a little recognition and respect, and to know that we 
> do a thing intrinsically worth doing. Again, I realise I do not 
> necessarily speak for everyone, but suspect that I speak for many.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Sam Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:26 AM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
> 
> "Offensive" seems a bit over the top! Who's it offending? Seems pretty 
> okay to me, personally. :-)
> 
> Anyway, the only thing I notice with it is that it starts with "We 
> will..." and then says "When I made..." etc. Shouldn't these pronouns 
> agree?
> 
> —Sam.
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 04:07 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > The old style is excessively large and in your face. The new style 
> > is almost, but not quite as bad. The content remains offensive and 
> > misleading Cheers, Peter
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 
> > On Behalf Of Joseph Seddon
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 5:02 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
> > 
> > Hey Wikimedia-l
> > 
> > Apologies for the short notice.
> > 
> > I wanted to give you a heads up on a banner test that will soon be 
> > going live.
> > 
> > We've been working on a new style of banner that is specifically 
> > designed to have the same native look and feel as the rest of the 
> > site and interface. It's intended to be understated and you'll see 
> > is very different to our currently best performing banner:
> > 
> > Current:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1718_0823_en6C
> > _d sk_p1_lg_dsn_cnt=1=US=QA
> > 
> > New Native feel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1718_0823_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_dsn_native=1=US=QA
> > 
> > Any feedback is welcome.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > --
> > Seddon
> > 
> > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia 
> > Foundation* ___
> > 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] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-25 Thread Samuel Patton
Hi all, happy Friday. I'm a member of the foundation's online fundraising
team and wanted to add a few points and answers to this good discussion.
I'll use bullet-points to separate each topic:

   - For clarification, this was a 1-hour test that ran from 15 to 16 UTC
   on Wednesday. We haven't adopted this style. And in terms of donor
   conversion, this banner variant lost to our control.

   - As Lodewijk stated above, we were interested in this test precisely
   because various community members have asked us to bring our banner more
   inline with the rest of Wikipedia's content. We have adopted elements of
   the MediaWiki OOjs UI and are interested in doing more.

   - This banner only ran for desktop and laptop users; not mobile or
   tablet.

   - We do not deliberately delay the loading of our banner content to draw
   attention to it and, generally, we try to minimize browser reflow as much
   as possible. CentralNotice simply loads after the rest of the page.

   - Thank you for the feedback regarding the copy you saw, from tone and
   pronoun usage to themes. We want to craft messaging that accurately
   represents the mission and values of Wikipedia while allowing us to hit our
   fundraising goals. Your comments matter and will continue to help guide the
   development of our appeals.

sam

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a
> success if it'd be made commercial is crazy. "Has it crossed my mind how
> much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the
> same." reads to me as just a hypothetical "if it were as it is today
> *and* had ads", rather than any serious suggestion that that would ever
> have been the case. I reckon it makes sense to the non-editor people
> it's aimed at.
>
> Anyway, about my grammar nickpicking? ;-)
>
> —Sam
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 05:06 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > Sam,
> > I can't get back to the banner for some reason, so I risk misquoting it.
> > Please take this into account.
> > What I find offensive is the implication that the foundation would even
> > have Wikipedia if they were doing it commercially. I and a significant
> > number of other contributors would not have helped make it what it is
> > today if it had been a commercial site. To support this opinion, there do
> > not appear to be any commercial projects of this type even vaguely
> > approaching the success of Wikipedia. The banner implies that there would
> > be a roughly equivalent project available to sell. This I find offensive
> > as it denigrates the voluntary contributions done by all the unpaid
> > contributors.
> > I see this as misrepresentation and disrespect to the crowd that is the
> > source of the product, therefore offensive.
> > It is possible that I am alone in this opinion, but I suggest that a
> > survey of the people who actually created and maintain the content of
> > Wikipedia would show that I am not.
> > At this point, I suggest that WMF do just that, run a survey to find out
> > who builds the encyclopaedia, and how they feel about this. The golden
> > rule of crowdsourcing is don’t alienate the crowd, especially when they
> > are doing your work for free. The one thing we ask in return for our work
> > is a little recognition and respect, and to know that we do a thing
> > intrinsically worth doing. Again, I realise I do not necessarily speak
> > for everyone, but suspect that I speak for many.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Sam Wilson
> > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:26 AM
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
> >
> > "Offensive" seems a bit over the top! Who's it offending? Seems pretty
> > okay to me, personally. :-)
> >
> > Anyway, the only thing I notice with it is that it starts with "We
> > will..." and then says "When I made..." etc. Shouldn't these pronouns
> > agree?
> >
> > —Sam.
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 04:07 PM, Peter Southwood wrote:
> > > The old style is excessively large and in your face. The new style is
> > > almost, but not quite as bad. The content remains offensive and
> > > misleading Cheers, Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Joseph Seddon
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 5:02 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up
> > >
> > > Hey Wikimedia-l
> > >
> > > Apologies for the short notice.
> > >
> > > I wanted to give you a heads up on a banner test that will soon be
> > > going live.
> > >
> > > We've been working on a new style of banner that is specifically
> > > designed to have the same native look and feel as the rest of the site
> > > and interface. It's 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

2017-08-25 Thread Jimmy Wales
On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of
> endowment,  The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort -- one
> of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the benefit
> of the projects today, and accumulating capital for the benefit of the
> projects tomorrow.  I am asking the Board to say why they decided to strike
> that balance where they did -- given the obvious need for that support
> right now -- and whether it is appropriate for large donors to apparently
> influence that decision.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself.

Given the level of reserves that the WMF has today, your entire approach
here (the assumption that $5 million going into the endowment therefore
reduces spending) is invalid.  There is enough money to do both.

The question is therefore not "Why did you save the money for the future
rather than spend it today?"

The question is: why don't we increase spending today?

We have always followed, and should continue to follow, a thoughtful
process of strategic planning and budgeting.  A windfall of cash from a
successful fundraising should never give rise to immediate and poorly
planned spending.

If you believe, as I do, that we have a great opportunity to responsibly
spend more money at the Foundation on suporting the projects in the next
few years - then please support the strategic planning process - that's
the right forum to have a voice in what happens next.

Random demands for explanations on the mailing list - particulary when
so fundamentally mistaken in basic assumptions - aren't really helpful.

--Jimbo

___
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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Shani Evenstein
Dear Wikimedia-l,

Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
"frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.

In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
course.

Best,
Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> length less than a year ago?
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> Periodic_survey_prototype
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
>  wrote:
> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> the
> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
> > why they will not do so.
> >
> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> contacting
> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
> my
> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >>
> >> And I stand by them.
> >>
> >> Seddon
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Joseph
> >> >
> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I
> >> said
> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To
> >> the
> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
> >> how
> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> you
> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
> >> over
> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> >> about
> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >> >
> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> the
> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
> >> and
> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> >> Alternatively,
> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> the
> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> >> >
> >> > Reginald
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your
> >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
> pseudonymous
> >> > > individual.
> >> > >
> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> >> > >
> >> > > Seddon
> >> > > ___
> >> > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Seddon
> >>
> >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] News on Wkipedia

2017-08-25 Thread Asaf Bartov
As far as I can tell, the Foundation does not have "policy on news across
its various projects".

So the answer to your original question:

> > Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
> > > source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions
> with
> > > the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities?  Will the Foundation allocate
> any
> > > extra resources to this effort?
>

would seem to be this: No, there is no particular decision to promote
Wikipedia as a source of news.  There have, however, been a number of blog
posts and communications celebrating Wikipedia's success at providing
relatively up-to-date and accurate information on current events.  No
discussion with either Wikipedia or Wikinews communities took place, or
needed to, as this was just another aspect of Wikipedia being showcased on
the Wikimedia blog.

As far as I can tell, the Foundation has not allocated any extra resources
to promoting Wikipedia as a news source.  You are mistaking a couple of
blog posts to signify Some Grand Policy Change, but it is not so.

Asaf
___
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] News on Wkipedia

2017-08-25 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Andrew

Thank you for your suggestion, but I think that a discussion about the
Foundations policy on news across its various projects is more suitable to
this list than to one of the Wikipedias.  Your comments on the
English-language Wikipedia policy on news are helpful.  Do you see the
Foundation's communications as being entirely consistent with that view?

Rutherford

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> 1. You misread en:WP:NOTNEWS . The policy doesn't say news is forbidden. It
> is that Wikipedia should consider notability and original research concerns
> and not act as a newspaper.
>
> Actual wording: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date
> information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on
> significant current events."
>
> 2. You misunderstand the Wikimedia Foundation role in these areas. Please
> take this discussion to the proper places on Wikipedia [[
> Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news]] and/or Wikinews.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > In a recent blog post, "No, we’re not in a post-fact world. On Wikipedia,
> > facts matter.", the Foundation referred to Wikipedia editors"sharing
> > breaking news in record time".  It is true that the English-language
> > Wikipedia is increasingly carrying articles about newsworthy events, and
> > this in spite of its WP:NOTNEWS policy.
> >
> > Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
> > source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions with
> > the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities?  Will the Foundation allocate any
> > extra resources to this effort?
> >
> > Rognvald
> > ___
> > 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,