[Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

[Pine W]

Hello,

This email is mainly addressed to Affcom and WMF but I would like to hear
others' comments also.

Some background information regarding the context for this email: the
recently published annual reports from user groups reminded me of some
issues that I first considered a few years ago. I believe that user group
annual reports are currently not standardized, and I think that the public
and WMF might like to have standardized quantitative and comparable ways to
understand affiliates' work, including use of volunteer hours and
per-program benefits, while minimizing the burden on volunteers for
administrative tasks.

I would like to suggest that Affcom and WMF require that all affiliates'
annual reports include:

1. A list of programs which the affiliate supported in the past year. For
each program the affiliate should state the financial costs to the
affiliate including overhead costs and overhead person-hours attributable
to the program, how much time the organizers and participants spent on the
program, the Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results of each program, and
results for any custom-defined measures of success. Auditable performance
information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
regarding their participation.

2. A financial summary for the year that states all sources of income and
amounts from each source, how funds were spent, funds payable, funds
receivable, debts, reserves, assets, etc.

3. Total annual organizer and participant person-hours and a summary of how
those hours were used, for both programmatic and non-programmatic
activities.

4. Total annual Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results for the year, and total
annual results for any custom-defined metrics. Again, auditable performance
information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
regarding their participation.

This information is important enough that I would support reasonable staff
or contractor expenses to produce reports with these details. I am mindful
of how precious volunteer time is, and I do not want to burden already
generous volunteers with administrative work that could be done by
contractors or staff. Some cooperation and support for reporting from
volunteer organizers may be necessary, such as when gathering information
from participants at individual events. Some affiliates may have such
generous volunteers that they can do all of the reporting with volunteer
time. But for many affiliates I would support reasonable expenses for
producing standardized quantitative information in annual reports while
minimizing the administrative burden on volunteers.

Regards,


-- 

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

[Vi to]

A quick comment: there are some sympthoms the process is totally broken
there. Reasoning about sources works fine when the process works, it's
completely useless otherwise.

See Dalibor Bosits@hrwiki

for example.

Vito

Il giorno mer 28 nov 2018 alle ore 13:09 Dennis During 
ha scritto:

> My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact".  I was trying to
> encourage the use of your approach.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> include
> > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> When
> > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> >
> > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> favourite
> > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> undermines
> > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:
> >
> > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > should
> > > get started.
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> facts.
> > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > ready
> > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees  > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et
> > al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > >
> > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> judgments.
> > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > case
> > > I
> > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > applied.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> I
> > > ___
> > > 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] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

[Dennis During]

My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact".  I was trying to
encourage the use of your approach.


On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen  Hoi,
> I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
> the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
> they are a faith, they are our faith.
>
> My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
> project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
> Wikipedia as NPOV!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:
>
> > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> should
> > get started.
> >
> > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > satisfactory.
> >
> > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> ready
> > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees  >
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
> al
> > > as
> > > > the new press barons?
> > >
> > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> case
> > I
> > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > applied.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > >  I
> > ___
> > 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] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Guinea Conakry

[Aboubacar Keïta]

Mr le président

L'honneur nous revient de relever le défi

Aboubacar keita

Le mar. 27 nov. 2018 à 17:07, Kirill Lokshin  a
écrit :

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Guinea Conakry [2] as a Wikimedia User
> Group. The group aims to encourage the growth, development and
> dissemination of educational content in multiple languages, with a
> particular emphasis on activities taking place in Guinea.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Guinea_Conakry
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Guinea_Conakry
> ___
> 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] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
they are a faith, they are our faith.

My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV!
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:

> Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We should
> get started.
>
> I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> satisfactory.
>
> Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost ready
> to go, let it be validated and put to use.
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees 
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> > as
> > > the new press barons?
> >
> > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case
> I
> > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > applied.
> >
> > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > somebody's gotta go first.
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> >  I
> ___
> 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] Page views of male/female biographies?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi,

Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?

Regards,
Micru
___
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,